EX    L1BRIS 

JOSEPH  T.  RYERSON 


SUPREME  COURT  OF  ILLINOIS, 

NORTHERN  GRAND  DIVISION. 

MARCH  TERM,  A.  D.  1887. 


AUGUST  SPIES  ET  AL., 

Plaintiff's  in  Error, 

1    Error  to  the 

Criminal  Court  of 

THE    PEOPLE    OF    THE    STATE    OF      y  Cook  Countv. 

ILLINOIS, 

Defendants  in  Error. 


BRIEF  ON  THE  FACTS  FOR  DEFENDANTS  IN  ERROR, 


GEORGE  HUNT, 

ATTORNEY  GENERAL. 

JULIUS  S.  ORINNELL, 

STATES  ATTORNEY. 

GEORGE  C.  INGHAM,  FRANCIS  W.  WALKER, 

OF  COUNSEL.  EDMUND  FURTHMAN, 

ASST.  STATES  ATTORNEYS. 


CHICAGO: 

BARNARD  &  GUNTHORP,  LAW  PRINTERS,  44  .k  46  LASALLE  STREET. 
1887. 


INDEX. 


PAGE. 

I.  Introduction i 

II.  Theory  of  the  State. 

(a.)     An  unlawful  conspiracy 1 

(b.)     Resulting  in  death , 2 

(c.)     To  which  plaintiffs  in  error  were  parties 2 

In  addition  thereto  it  appears 

(d.)     Some  of  the  defendants   directly  connected  with   the 

throwing  of  the  bomb 2 

(e.)     and  some  guilty  as  accessories 2 


EVIDENCE    OF    FACTS    ABOUT    WHICH    THERE    is  NO 
MATERIAL  DISPUTE. 

III.     Was   there  a  conspiracy? 3 

A.  Spies'  declaration  at  Grand   Rapids 3 

B.  The  work  of  propagation 11 

(1.)     Platform  of  the  International 11 

(2.)     Alarm   articles 16 

(3.)     Arbeiter  Zeitung  articles 30 

(4.)     Speeches  of  defendants 47 

Evidence  of  Dresser , 47 

"           Williamson 48 

"           Hardy 49 

"           Freeman 50 

"           Dickson 51 

"           Ryan 54 

"          Treharn 55 

"           Miller 55 

"           Weinecke 56 

"          Johnson 56 

Lehman 61 

"           Seliger 61 

Neff....                                                                  .  62 


1  V 

PAGE. 

C.    The  work  of  preparation 63 

(1.)     The  code  of  ethics  and  manual  of  tactics 66 

(2.)     Practical  instructions  for  the  revolutionists 73 

(3.)     Editorial  declarations 81 

(4.)     Spies  declarations  to  Wilkinson 84 

(5.)     Declarations  of  Parsons  and  Fielden  in  presence  of 
Spies  at  Arbeiter  office,  and   what  was  seen  and 

heard  there 92 

(6.)     Groups;    armed  section;    drilling;   dynamite;   bombs; 

general  committee;  Y  Komme  — 97 

Evidence  of  Waller 9  7 

"  "   Schrade 99 

"          "   Seliger 99 

"  "   Mrs.  Seliger 102 

"  "   Lehman 103 

"  "   Johnson 105 

"  "    Prouty 106 

"  "    Reynolds 109 

"  "    Quinn 109 

"  "    Bonfield 110 

"          "   Mahlendorf. Ill 

"  "    Wilkinson Ill 

"  "   Fricke 112 

"  "   Spies 112 

(7.)     Host's  Book 117 

Evidence  of  Schaack 130 

"  "    Bonfield 130 

IV.  Revolution  to  be  inaugurated  the  first  of  May.  131 

Evidence  of  Johnson 132 

"  "   Magee ,  133 

"  "    Heinemann 1-34 

"  "    Alarm  articles 134 

"  "    Williamson ,,  135 

"  "   Wilkinson 138 

"          '•   Moulton 136 

V.  Events  immediately  preceding  the  Haymarket 

Meeting  and  Lingg's  action  that  night 137 

A.  Nowornever 145 

B.  The  McCormick  riot...  ,.  147 


PAGE. 

Evidence  of  Ilarasler 147 

"  "    Baker 148 

«  "   Leckie 148 

"  "   Frazier 149 

"   West 149 

"  "    Enright 151 

"   Shane 151 

Spies'  account  of  meeting 152 

C.  (1.)    The  revenge  circular 157 

(2.)     Spies  wrote  it 159 

(3.)     Its  printing  and  distribution ,  159 

D.  The  meeting  at  Greif's   Hall 162 

Evidence  of  Waller 162 

"         "    Schrade 172 

"    Lehman 174 

"        "    Greif. 175 

"         "    Smythe 175 

E.  Lingg's  work,  Tuesday  and  Tuesday  night 176 

Evidence  of  Seliger  176 

"         "    Mrs.  Seliger 195 

"         "    Lehman 197 

"        "    Neff 200 

Ruhe 201 

The  CalL 203 

VI.  The   Haymarket  Meeting 205 

(a)  The  Speeches 206 

(b)  The  Bomb 217 

(c)  Effect  of  the  Bomb 219 

•  (rf)  Composition  of  the  Bomb 233 

VII.  After  the  Haymarket  Meeting: 
ADDITIONAL  EVIDENCE  OF  CONSPIRACY 241 

Slay  ton  241 

Shea 241 

Bonfield 242 

Jones 243 

Duffy 243 

Bonfield ..  244 


VI 

PAGE. 

Marks 246 

Buck 247 

Schuttler 248 

Lowenstein 250 

Schaack 255 

Stift 261 

Mrs.  Sullivan 262 

Miller 262 

Hoffman 264 

McNamara 265 

Drews 265 

Whalen 265 

Coughlin  265 

Map  of  the  Haymarket 267 

VIII.  Matters  about  which  there  is  a  conflict  in 
the  Evidence 268 

(1.)     Did  the  crowd  fire  first? 268 

(2.)     Threats  as  the  police  approached ."...  287 

(4.)     Did  Fielden  fire  from  behind  the  wagon? 294 

(4.)     Who  threw  the  bomb,  and  the  point  from  which  it  was 

thrown.... 310 

IX.  Conclusion  335 


MAY  IT  PLEASE  YOUR  HONORS: 

I. 

The  competency  of  evidence  and  the  correctness  of  in- 
structions depend  largely  upon  the  facts  developed  during 
the  progress  of  a  trial.  Evidence  which  under  one  state 
of  facts  is  incompetent  under  another  becomes  competent, 
and  an  instruction  which  in  one-  case  may  result  in  a  re- 
versal in  another  may  be  approved  as  sound  law. 

We  desire,  therefore,  before  entering  upon  a  discussion 
of  the  questions  of  law  involved  in  the  record,  to  state 
somewhat  fully  the  history  of  the  crime  and  the  con- 
nection of  the  defendants  therewith  as  developed  on  the 
trial,  for  we  are  convinced  that  when  all  of  the  facts  of 
the  case  are  considered  together  there  can  be  no  question 
of  the  correctness  of  the  rulings  and  the  soundness  of  the 
instructions  of  the  distinguished  judge  who  presided  at 
the  trial. 


II. 
THEORY  OF  THE  STATE. 

(a.)  The  theory  of  the  prosecution  is,  that  for  a  num- 
ber of  years  there  existed  in  the  county  of  Cook  a  con- 
spiracy, embracing  a  large  number  of  persons,  having  for 
its  object  the  destruction  of  the  legal  authorities  of  the 
state  and  county,  the  overthrow  of  the  law  itself,  and  a 
complete  revolution  of  the  existing  order  of  society,  and 
the  accomplishment  of  this,  not  by  agitation  or  through 
the  ballot-box,  but  by  force  and  terrorism,  a  conspiracy 
deliberately  formed  and  thoroughly  organized. 


That  the  bomb,  the  explosion  of  which  resulted 
in  the  death  of  Degan,  was  thrown  by  a  member  of  the 
conspiracy  in  pursuance  of  the  objects  of  the  conspiracy 
and  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  it  into  effect;  in  other 
words,  that  it  was  the  opening  shot  of  an  internecine  war 
which  should  bring  about  the  social  revolution. 

(c. )  That  each  one  of  the  plaintiffs  in  error  was  a 
member  of  that  conspiracy  and  an  active  participant  in  it, 
and  hence  was  responsible  for  the  results  which  followed 
from  it. 

If  the  record  establishes  these  facts  beyond  a  reasona- 
ble doubt,  it  follows,  as  a  conclusion  of  law,  that  all  of  the 
plaintiffs  in  error  are  guilty  of  murder,  for  they  were  all 
engaged  in  an  unlawful  project  involving  the  use  of  force 
and  violence.  The  unlawful  project  resulted  in  murder, 
and  hence,  under  a  doctrine  which  is  as  old  as  the  com- 
mon law,  and  which  has  always  been  recognized  in  this 
state,  all  of  the  defendants  are  guilty  of  the  unlawful  re- 
sult. 

Growing  out  of .  the  evidence  in  the  case  are  certain 
other  principles  which  apply  to  some  or  all  of  the  defend- 
ants under  which  they  become  guilty  in  addition  to  their 
responsibility  growing  out  of  the  fact  of  their  member- 
ship in  the  unlawful  conspiracy. 

(*f.)  There  is  evidence  in  the  record  tending  to  show 
a  direct  and  immediate  connection  of  some  of  the  defend- 
ants with  the  throwing  of  the  bomb.  If  the  evidence  es- 
tablishes this  fact  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  then  those 
of  the  defendants  so  shown  to  be  connected  are  guilty. 

(e.)  It  appears,  moreover,  that  some  of  the  defend- 
ants, through  a  long  period  of  time,  both  orally  and  in 
print,  publicly  and  in  private,  have  advised,  encouraged 
and  solicited  the  destruction  of  the  police  force  of  the  city 
of  Chicago  and  of  the  lawful  authorities  by  force. 


If  the  person  who  actually  threw  the  bomb  was  incited 
or  encouraged  to  do  it  by  reason  of  the  speeches  or  arti- 
cles referred  to,  then  the  authors  of  those  speeches  and 
articles  are,  under  our  statute  in  regard  to  accessories, 
equally  guilty  with  the  man  who  actually  threw  the  bomb. 
Our  position  upon  this  branch  of  the  case  is  that  the  evi- 
dence shows  overwhelmingly,  when  all  taken  together, 
that  whoever  threw  the  bomb  was  so  instigated. 


Evidence  of  Facts  about  which  there  is  no 
Material  Dispute, 

III. 

WAS     THERE     SUCH     A     CONSPIRACY? 

If  there  was  such  a  conspiracy,  and  if  the  defendants 
were  members  of  it,  it  can  only  be  shown,  as  in  this  case 
it  has  been  shown: 

By  their  declarations,  and  by  their  acts. 

(A.)     SPIES'    DECLARATIONS  AT  GRAND   RAPIDS. 

On  the  22d  of  February,  1885,  August  Spies,  one  of 
the  defendants  in  this  case,  the  editor  of  the  Arbeiter  Zei- 
tung,  and,  as  we  claim,  the  controlling  spirit  among  the 
revolutionists  in  the  west,  visited  the  city  of  Grand  Rap- 
ids, Michigan,  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  a  lecture  be- 
fore the  Knights  of  Labor.  He  was  introduced  to  the 
audience  by  Mr.  Luther  Moulton,  at  that  time  connected 


with  and  a  prominent  officer  in  the  organization  of  the 
Knights  of  Labor  at  that  place.  Before  delivering  the 
lecture,  Spies  appeared  at  the  house  of  Moulton,  and  was 
introduced  to  him  by  a  man  named  Tandler.  The  con- 
versation which  took  place  between  Mr.  Moulton  and 
Mr.  Spies  was  in  the  presence  of  a  gentleman  named 
Shook.  Both  Mr.  Moulton  and  Mr.  Shook  testified  in 
the  case.  Mr.  Moulton  said  (I,  276): 

"  Mr.  Tandler  introduced  him,  and  stated  he  was  a 
prominent  man  among  the  socialists  of  Chicago,  and  was 
there  for  the  purpose  of  lecturing,  and  wished  me  to  be- 
come acquainted  with  him,  and  requested  that  I  should  in- 
troduce him  at  the  meeting  that  was  to  follow  that  day. 
I  proceeded  to  question  Air.  Spies  at  some  length  in  regard 
to  the  purposes  and  objects  of  the  organization  that  he  rep- 
resented. I  cannot  undertake  to  recite  this  conversation, 
of  course.  I  did  not  charge  my  memory  with  it,  and 
made  no  record  of  it.  The  substance  of  his  replies  was, 
substantially,  that  the  organization  -was  for  the  purpose  of 
reorganizing  society  upon  a  more  equitable  basis,  that  the 
laboring  man  might  have  belter  and  a  fairer  division  of 
the  products  of  his  labor.  I  had  heard  much  of  their 
theories,  and  I  questioned  him  particularly  as  to  how  they 
were  to  accomplish  this  result,  and  I  interposed  the  ob- 
jection, to  draw  him  out,  that  the  ballot-box  and  the  legis- 
lation of  the  country  -was  the  proper  means  to  resort  to;  he 
expressed  no  confidence  in  such  methods,  and  expressed  the 
opinion  that  force  and  arms  -was  the  only  way  in  which  the 
results  could  be  accomplished  directly;  that  they  were  pre- 
pared for  such  a  demonstration. 

«  Q.      Where? 

"A.  In  Chicago,  and  in  all  commercial  centers  of  the 
country,  that  they  had  a  sufficient  force  already  organized 
in  Chicago  to  take  the  city,  numbering  about  3,000;  I  ob- 
jected that  j,ooo  would  not  be  sufficient.  He  said  they  had 
superior  means  of  warfare.  I  then  conceded  that  if  they 
might  take  the  city  how  would  they  keep  it?  He  said  that 
they  would  rapidly  gain  accessions  to  their  ranks  if  they 
were  successful.  I  said,  where  would  it  come  from?  He 
said,  from  the  laboring  men.  /  said,  how  could  they  get 


the  laboring  men  to  join  them?  He  said,  hold  out  induce- 
ments. I  said,  what  inducements?  He  said  they  would 
embrace  the  opportunity  to  make  the  demonstration  when 
laboring  men  were  idle  in  large  number ~s,  out  on  strikes 
and  lock-outs,  and  would  hold  out  to  them  inducements  in 
the  shape  of  means  to  relieve  their  wants  and  employments, 
which  would  induce  the  laboring  men  to  join  them  in  great 
numbers,  which  would  add  to  their  strength  quite  rapidly r, 
so  that  they  would  be  able  to  hold  the  city.  I  questioned 
as  to  how  they  would  hold  the  country,  and  he  thought 
the  country  would  fall  in  line,  because  they  wottld  be  able  to 
propagate  their  ideas  rapidly  among  the  country  people 
and  satisfy  them  that  they  were  improving  the  condition  of 
society.  I  inquired  how  they  would  carry  out  these  results 
without  bloodshed — if  there  was  no  danger  of  killing  some 
one.  He  thought  there  might  be;  that  that  happened 
frequently  in  the  case  of  revolutions.  I  then  inquired  if 
this  wottld  not  amount  to  a  criminal  action  which  would  be 
punishable,  and  in  substance  he  thought  it  might  be  if  it 
failed,  but  if  it  was  a  success  it  would  be  revolution,  and 
George  Washington  would  have  been  punished  had  he 
failed,  and  therefore  all  such  things  were  considered 
crimes  if  failures,  and  heroism  if  successful,  and  thereby 
they  would  be  able  to  escape  the  consequences  of  punishment 
if  they  were  successful;  they  would  have  to  take  their 
chances.  That  was  substantially  the  result  of  the  investi- 
gation. I  did  not  investigate  to  any  great  length  as  to 
their  plan  of  organization. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  in  that  conversation  by  Spies 
as  to  the  means  or  mode  of  warfare  or  of  their  revolution, 
about  armed  forces  which  he  said  they  had  in  Chicago? 

"  A.     No  details  in  regard  to  that. 

"  Q.     Was  anything  said  as  to  explosives  or  dynamite? 

"  A.  1  am  quite  certain  the  term  explosives  was  used  in 
connection  with  arms;  but  nothing  very  definite,  and  no 
extended  investigation  about  tactics  and  methods  . 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  there  as  to  how  you  might 
or  others  interested  with  them  might  become  informed  as 
to  their  means  and  form  of  warfare? 

"  A.     I  don't  recollect  any  such  inquiry. 

"  Q,     How  long  did  this  conversation  last? 

"  A.     I  should  say  in  the  vicinity  of  half  an  hour. 

"  Q.     That  was  at  your  house? 


6 

«'  A.     At  my  house. 

"  Q.     That  was  on    Sunday,  the   22d    of    February, 


"  A.     It  was. 

"  Q.  Was  there  anything  said  at  that  conversation 
about  the  eight-hour  movement?  When  it  was  to  culmi- 
mate  or  when  this  revolution  was  to  culminate? 

"  A.  There  was  something  said  about  the  eight-hour 
movement. 

"  Q.     What  was  said  with  reference  to  that? 

"  A.  It  was  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  subject 
of  the  great  number  of  men  likely  to  be  idle  and  unem- 
ployed, and  in  answer  to  a  question  as  to  -when  the  demon- 
stration was  likely  to  be  made  which  they  proposed  to  make; 
and  he  stated  substantially  that  it  would  probably  come  at 
a  time  when  the  working-men  attempted  to  introduce  the 
eight-hour  system  of  labor. 

"  Q.  Now,  at  that  time  was  there  anything  said  about 
the  police  or  militia  that  might  or  could  be  brought  against 
them  in  the  city  of  Chicago? 

"  A.  Nothing  further  than  in  general  terms;  they  were 
-prepared  to  successfully  resist  and  destroy  such  forces. 

"  Q.  Did  you  preside  at  the  meeting  that  day  at  which 
Spies  spoke? 

«  A.     I  did." 

Mr.  Shock's  account  of  the  conversation  (I,  282)  is  as 
follows: 

"  I  am  a  laboring  man,  a  machine  hand,  employed  in  a 
furniture  factory  at  Grand  Rapids;  have  lived  there  six 
years;  am  acquainted  with  Mr.  Moulton,  the  previous 
witness;  in  1885  I  lived  in  the  same  house  with  him;  on 
the  22d  day  of  February  of  that  year  I  was  introduced  to 
August  Spies;  I  heard  a  conversation  between  Mr.  Moul- 
ton and  Mr.  Spies.  The  conversation  was  more  of  a 
discussion.  Mr.  Moulton  commenced  to  question  Mr. 
Spies  regarding  his  socialistic  organization,  as  he  termed 
it,  and  1  remember  -very  distinctly  of  his  stating  that  they 
had  a  secret  organization  in  the  city  of  Chicago  numbering 
'very  nearly  3,000;  I  remember  he  stated,  as  the  question 
was  asked  him,  what  they  proposed  to  do  with  this  or- 
ganization; he  said  they  proposed  to  revolutionize  the 


country  or  society  in  general;  he  argued  that  it  was 
entirely  useless  to  undertake  to  better  the  laboring  ele- 
ment by  legislation,  because  it  was  hardly  possible  to  get 
men  into  office  that  would  legislate  for  their  benefit,  and 
he  thought  that  it  could  be  brought  about  by  revolution, 
and  the  question  was  asked  him  how  by  revolution,  and  1 
remember  he  used  the  word « explosive"* ';  he  was  asked 
again  whether  there  was  any  other  method;  he  said  by  a 
secret  organization  which  nobody  knew  until  they  became  a 
member  of  the  organization — that  is  what  they  intended 
to  do  in  this  organization,  how  they  intended  to  drill  their 
men  in  their  mode  of  warfare.  That  was  substantially 
the  argument,  as  I  remember  it. 

"  Q.  Do  you  remember  anything  about  the  use  of 
the  name  Washington  on  that  Washington  anniversary? 

"  A.  I  remember  when  he  was  asked  the  question  if 
he  didn't  think  there  would  be  bloodshed,  he  said  he 
didn't  know  but  what  there  might;  he  said  that  all  revo- 
lutions had  to  undergo  a  certain  amount  of  risk,  and  that 
they  were  liable,  of  course,  somebody,  to  get  hurt. 

"  Q.  What  was  said  in  that  connection  about  George 
Washington,  if  anything? 

"  A.  Nothing  more  in  particular,  although  they  said 
if  he  had  failed  he  would  probably  have  been  hung  for 
treason. 

"  Q.     That  was  the  chance  they  took? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  In  that  conversation  was  anything  said  about  the 
culmination  of  this  revolution — when  it  was  to  take  place, 
or  with  reference  to  what  it  was  to  take  place? 

"  A.     I  don't  remember  that  there  was  any  date  stated. 

"  Q.     How  was  it  expressed? 

"A.  At  the  time  when  there  would  be  the  most  men  idle 
— the  most  confusion. 

"  Q.  Do  you  remember  of  there  being  anything  said 
at  that  time  about  the  eight-hour  discussion? 

"  A.     I  do  not. 

"  Q.  In  that  connection,  or  in  that  conversation,  was 
anything  said  about  Chicago  or  the  commercial  centers? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     What? 

"  A.  He  said  that  they  proposed  to  organize  all  the 
large  commercial  centers  as  they  had  Chicago  organized. 


8 

"  Q.  Now,  was  anything  said  about  the  country  out- 
side the  commercial  centers? 

"  A.  I  do  not  remember  of  anything  distinct  regarding 
that  matter." 

It  will  be  observed  from  this  evidence,  which  was  un- 
contradicted,  although  Mr.  Spies  himself  took  the  stand  as 
a  witness,  and  which  was  not  even  attacked  by  a  cross- 
examination,  that  Mr.  Spies  deliberately  stated  to  Mr. 
Moulton  and  Mr.  Shook  that  there  was  an  organization 
then  formed  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  numbering  about 
three  thousand  persons,  who  were  armed  with  superior 
means  of  warfare;  that  the  object  of  this  organization 
was  the  destruction  of  the  existing  order  of  society;  that 
it  proposed  to  accomplish  this,  not  by  agitation — having 
no  confidence  either  in  agitation,  the  ballot  or  legislation — 
but  by  force;  that  they  expected  to  bring  about  the  revo- 
lution when  laboring  men  were  idle  in  large  numbers  and 
could  be  easily  induced  to  join  them.  Spies,  at  that  time, 
recognized  the  fact  that  in  order  to  accomplish  the  result 
wished  for,  bloodshed  would  be  necessary;  that  in  case 
of  failure  he  would  be  a  criminal,  amenable  to  punish- 
ment; but  that  if  succesful,  he  would  be  a  hero,  and 
would  escape  punishment;  that  he  took  his  chances. 

Was  this  statement  of  Spies  a  deliberate  statement  of 
a  fact  which  actually  existed,  or  was  it,  to  borrow  a  pet 
expression  of  the  counsel  for  the  defense,  "  mere  bragga- 
docio?" 

If  the  revolutiouists  in  Chicago  expected  to  do  what 
Spies  said  they  did,  there  was  but  one  way  in  which 
they  could  accomplish  their  purpose.  They  must  make 
converts  to  their  theory  and  prepare  their  means  of  war- 
fare by  which  they  could  carry  their  plans  into  execu- 
tion. 


The  evidence  shows  that  there  has  been  in  existence  in 
the  city  of  Chicago  for  a  number  of  years  groups  of  an 
organization  known  as  the  International  Workingrnen's 
Association,  spoken  of  sometimes  through  the  evidence  as 
the  International  Arbeiter  Association,  and  known  com- 
monly as  the  "  International " — an  organization  extending 
through  most  of  the  civilized  countries  of  the  world.  This 
association  in  the  city  of  Chicago  was  composed  of  groups, 
some  of  them  autonomous  in  their  government,  others,  be- 
ing by  far  the  greater  number,  sending  delegates  to  a  cen- 
tral organization  called  the  general  committee,  which  met 
at  the  office  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  and  which  was  a 
sort  of  a  central  governing  committee,  and  formed  a  bond 
of  union  between  the  different  groups. 

It  is  well  known,  as  a  matter  of  history,  of  which  courts 
can  take  judicial  cognizance,  that  the  object  of  the  "  Inter- 
national," wherever  it  exists  throughout  the  civilized 
world,  is  the  bringing  about  of  what  they  style  a  "  social 
revolution,"  by  which  they  mean  the  destruction  of  the 
right  of  private  property;  the  details  of  the  system  which 
they  propose  to  substitute  for  the  present  system  of  soci- 
ety and  the  forms  of  government  which  they  propose  to 
substitute  for  those  now  existing  differing  somewhat  in 
different  countries  and  in  portions  of  the  same  country, 
according  as  the  members  of  the  "  International "  are 
more  or  less  radical  in  their  views.  It  is  also  known,  as 
a  matter  of  history,  that  some  of  the  members  of  the 
*'  International "  are  what  are  called  anarchists,  or  those 
who  believe  that  there  should  be  no  government  what- 
ever, and  that  there  should  be  no  right  of  property  what- 
ever, but  that  every  man  should  live  as  he  sees  fit  and  do 
as  he  sees  fit,  subject  only  to  the  opposition  of  his  neigh- 
bor, who  may  perhaps  be  stronger  than  himself.  It  is 


10 

also  known,  as  a  matter  of  history,  that  the  anarchist  be- 
lieves that  the  only  way  the  social  revolution  can  be 
brought  about,  existing  property  rights  destroyed,  and 
existing  governments  overthrown  is  by  the  use  of  force 
and  the  inspiration  of  terror. 

What  was  the  common  object  which  bound  together 
the  groups  of  the  "  International  "  in  the  city  of  Chicago 
appears  from  the  record  in  this  case.  It  appears  in  the 
evidence,  and  is  uncontradicted,  that  the  "  Arbeiter  Zei- 
tung,"  portions  of  which  were  introduced  in  evidence  in 
the  case,  was  the  organ  of  the  German-speaking  groups 
of  the  "International" — was  their  official  mouthpiece; 
that  its  managing  editor  was  August  Spies,  and  the  editor 
next  in  rank  was  Michael  Schwab;  that  among  its  stock- 
holders were  the  defendants  Spies,  Schwab,  Fielden,  Par- 
sons and  Neebe.  It  appears  also  that  "  The  Alarm,"  por- 
tions of  which  were  introduced  in  evidence,  was  the  organ 
and  official  mouthpiece  of  the  English-speaking  portion 
of  the  groups  of  the  "  International";  that  its  editor  was 
the  defendant  Parsons;  that  Fielden,  Spies,  Parsons, 
Schwab  and  Neebe,  defendants  in  this  case,  were  stock- 
holders in  the  organization  which  owned  it. 

As  to  the  competency  of  the  introduction  of  the  articles 
in  these  papers,  we  shall  speak  later  on.  We  desire  now 
to  quote  from  a  portion  of  the  articles  which  were  intro- 
duced in  evidence  for  the  purpose  of  showing  from  the 
recognized  organs  of  the  "  International  "  what  it  was, 
and  what  the  anarchists  in  the  city  of  Chicago  hoped  to 
do.  From  these  articles  it  appears  that  those  connected 
with  and  responsible  for  these  papers  were  engaged  con- 
tinuously and  systematically  in  the  work  of  propagation — 
that  is,  of  advocating  the  doctrines  and  making  converts  to 
the  cause  of  the  social  revolutionists. 


II 


(B.)     THE  WORK  OF  PROPAGATION. 

There  appears  in  all  the  issues  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung 
during  the  months  of  February,  March  and  April,  1886, 
the  proclamation  and  the  platform  of  the  International 
Association  of  Workingmen  in  America;  in  other  words, 
the  official  declaration  of  their  principles  and  intentions  as 
promulgated  by  the  editors  of  that  paper  and  the  Alarm, 
in  which  it  was  also  published. 

The  article  is  as  follows: 
(i.)     THE  PLATFORM  OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL. 

"INTERNATIONAL    ASSOCIATION    OF    WORKINGMEN. 

(People's  Exhibit  16.) 

"  PROCLAMATION. 

"  To   the    Workingmen   of  the    United   States   of  North 
America. 

"FELLOW  LABORERS:  The  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence of  the  United  States  of  this  country  contains  the  fol- 
lowing: 'When  a  long  train  of  abuses  and  usurpations, 
pursuing  invariably  the  same  object,  evinces  a  design  to 
reduce  them  (the  people)  under  absolute  despotism,  it  is 
their  right,  it  is  their  duty  to  throw  off  such  govtrnment 
and  to  provide  new  guards  for  their  future  security.' 

"  Now,  has  not  the  moment  already  arrived  for  re- 
ducing to  practice  this  thought  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  the 
real  founder  of  the  American  republic?  Are  we  not  too 
much  governed? 

"  And  is  our  government,  forsooth,  anything  but  a  con- 
spiracy of  privileged  classes  against  the  people,  against 
you? 

"  Fellow  laborers:  Hear  what  we  have  to  say  to  you 
under  such  circumstances,  read  the  following  declaration 
which  we  have  issued  in  your  interest  and  for  the  welfare 


12 

of  your  wives  and  children,  for  humanity  and  progress. 
The  present  order  of  society,  so-called,  is  based  upon  the 
spoliation  of  the  non-property  owners  by  the  property- 
owners.  The  spoliation  consists  in  this,  that  the  property- 
owners  (the  capitalists)  buy  the  labor  of  the  poor  on 
the  average  for  the  mere  cost  of  living  (wages),  and 
claim  for  themselves,  that  is,  steal  all  the  new  wealth 
^products)  created  by  this  labor,  over  and  above  this 
amount. 

*  *  *  * 

"  This  system  is  unjust,  insane,  and  murderous.  For 
that  reason  every  human  being  who  suffers  under  it,  and 
who  does  not  wish  through  his  inactivity  against  it  to 
share  in  the  responsibility  for  its  continuance,  ought  to 
strive  for  its  total  destruction,  by  the  use  of  all  means  and 
by  the  exertion  of  his  greatest  energy.  In  its  place  is  to 
be  put  the  true  order  of  society. 

"  This  can  be  brought  about  only  when  all  instruments 
of  labor,  ground  and  soil  and  other  conditions  of  produc- 
tion, in  short,  when  all  capital  which  has  been  produced 
by  labor,  has  been  transformed  into  common  property. 
For  on  this  condition  alone  is  every  possibility  of  spolia- 
tion of  man  by  man  cut  oft".  It  is  only  when  capital  is 
made  common  and  indivisible  that  all  can  be  made  to  par- 
take fully  and  freely  of  the  fruits  of  common  activity.  It 
is  only  by  the  impossibility  of  acquiring  individual  (pri- 
vate) capital,  that  everybody  is  compelled  to  work,  if  he 
wishes  to  claim  the  right  to  live. 

"  Neither  lordship  nor  servitude  will  henceforth  exist  in 
human  society. 

"  This  order  of  things  carries  with  it,  furthermore,  that 
production  will  be  regulated  by  the  wants  of  the  commu- 
nity, and  that  no  one  will  need  to  work  more  than  a  few 
hours  a  day  and  yet  all  will  be  able  to  satisfy  all  their 
wants  to  the  fullest  extent.  In  this  way,  time  and  oppor- 
tunity are  also  given  for  opening  to  all  the  people  the  pos- 
sibility of  the  highest  imaginable  culture,  that  is,  for  cut- 
ting off  together  with  the  privileges  of  wealth  and  birth 
the  prerogatives  also  of  higher  knowledge. 

"  Opposed  to  the  establishment  of  such  a  system  stand 
above  all  the  political  organizations  of  the  capitalistic 
classes,  be  they  called  monarchies  or  republics.  These 


13 

political  creations  (state),  which  are  wholly  in  the  hands 
of  the  property  owners,  have  apparently  no  other  end  in 
view  than  the  maintenance  of  the  spoliation — disorder  of 
the  present  day. 

"  The  laws  direct  their  sharp  points  wholly  against  the 
laboring  people.  So  far  as  the  opposite  seems  to  be  the 
case,  they  serve,  on  the  one  hand,  to  throw  dust  in  the 
eyes  of  the  workingmen,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are 
simply  evaded  by  the  ruling  classes. 

"  The  school  itself  exists  only  to  furnish  the  offspring  of 
the  rich  with  those  capacities  which  are  necessary  to 
maintain  the  supremacy  of  their  class.  The  children  of 
the  poor  receive  scarcely  a  formal  elementary  education; 
this,  moreover,  is  directed  toward  those  subjects  of  study 
which  serve  only  to  promote  conceit,  prejudice,  servility, 
in  short,  anything  but  intelligence. 

"  The  church,  moreover,  seeks,  through  a  reference  to- 
a  fictitious  heaven,  to  make  the  masses  forget  the  loss  of 
paradise  on  the  earth.  The  press,  on  the  other  hand, 
takes  care  to  confuse  the  public  mind. 

"  All  these  institutions,  far  from  promoting  public  intel- 
ligence, aim  to  prevent  the  people  from  reaching  intelli- 
gence. They  are  entirely  in  the  pay  and  under  the  sway 
of  the  capitalist  classes.  The  laborers,  consequently,  can 
look  for  aid  from  no  outside  source  in  their  fight  against 
the  existing  system.  They  must  achieve  their  deliverance 
through  the  exertion  of  their  own  strength. 

"  As  in  former  times  no  -privileged  class  ever  relinquished 
its  tyranny,  no  more  can  ive  take  it  for  granted  that  the 
capitalists  of  the  present  day  will  forego  their  privileges 
and  their  authority  without  compulsion.  If  there  could 
ever  have  been  any  doubt  on  this  point,  it  would  have 
been  sufficiently  cleared  away  by  the  brutalities  of  which 
the  bourgeoise  (middle  classes) — in  America  as  well  as  in 
Europe — have  been  guilty,  as  often  as  the  proletarians 
(laboring  classes)  anywhere  conceived  the  notion  of  tak- 
ing energetic  steps  to  improve  their  condition. 

"//  /5  therefore  self-evident  that  the  fight  of  proletarianism 
against  the  bourgeoise  must  have  a  violent  revolutionary 
character,  and  that  mere  -wage  conjlicts  can  never  lead  to 
the  goal. 

"   We  could  show  by  numerous  illustrations  that  all  at- 


tempts  which  have  been  made  in  the  past  to  do  away  with 
the  existing1  monstrous  social  system  through  peaceable 
means, for  example,  through  the  ballot-box,  have  been  en- 
tirely useless  and  will  be  so  in  the  future,  and  for  the  fol- 
lowing" reasons;  The  political  institutions  of  the  present 
time  are  only  instruments  of  power,  in  the  hands  of  the 
property-owning  classes;  their  sole  object  is  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  prerogatives  of  your  spoliators;  every  reform 
in  your  favor  would  only  curtail  these  privileges;  to  this 
the  privileged  can  never  give  their  consent,  for  that  would 
be  to  them  suicide.  We  know,  therefore,  that  the  ruling' 
classes  will  not  voluntarily  relinquish  their  prerogatives  and 
will  make  no  concessions  to  us.  Under  all  these  circum- 
stances, there  is  only  one  remedy  left—force ! 

"  Our  ancestors  (the  champions  of  liberty  of  1776- 
1781)  have  not  only  taught  us  that  force  against  tyrants 
is  justifiable  and  is  the  only  means  of  redress,  but  they 
have  themselves  given  us  an  immortal  example  of  this. 
It  was  through  force  that  our  ancestors  freed  themselves 
from  their  foreign  oppressors,  and  through  force  their 
descendants  must  free  themselves  from  domestic  oppres- 
sion. 

"  Therefore  it  is  your  right,  it  is  your  duty,  says  Jeffer- 
son, to  arm  yourselves. 

"  Agitation  with  a  view  to  organization,  organizations 
for  the  purpose  of  rebellion,  herein  is  indicated  in  a  few 
words  the  way  which  -Corking-men  must  take,  if  they 
would  rid  themselves  of  their  chains.  And  as  the  situa- 
tion of  affairs,  in  all  lands  of  the  so-called  '  civilized ' 
world  is  the  same;  since,  moreover,  the  governments  of 
all  monarchies  and  republics  work  completely  hand  in 
hand,  when  it  comes  to  opposing  the  efforts  of  the  think- 
ing portion  of  the  laboring  men;  since,  finally,  the  victory 
of  the  laboring  population  can  be  confidently  counted  on 
only  when  the  proletarians  inagurate  the  decisive  combat 
at  the  same  time  along  the  whole  line  of  the  civil  (capi- 
talistic) society,  the  necessity  for  the  international  affilia- 
tion which  finds  its  expression  in  the  International  Asso- 
ciation of  Workingmen  is  self-evident. 


"  OUR  PLATFORM. 

"  Our  aim  is  therefore  simple  and  clear: 

"  i.  Destruction  of  the  existing"  class-domination,  by  alt 
means;  i.  e.,  through  energetic,  inexorable,  revolutionary 
and  international  activity. 

"  2.  The  building  up  of  a  free  society  founded  on  a 
communistic  organization  of  production. 

"  3.  Free  exchange  of  equivalent  products  through 
the  productive  organization  itself,  without  jobbing  and 
profit-making. 

"  4.  Organization  of  the  educational  system,  upon  a 
non-religious,  scientific  and  equal  basis  for  both  sexes. 

"  5.  Absolutely  equal  rights  for  all  without  distinction 
of  sex  or  race. 

"  6.  The  regulation  of  all  public  affairs  through  agree- 
ments fully  entered  into  by  the  autonomous  (independent  ^ 
communes  and  confederacies." 

The  same  platform  appears  in  "The  Alarm"  (see 
People's  Exhibit  19).  It  will  thus  be  seen,  from  the 
reading  of  this  platform,  that  the  object  of  the  "In- 
ternational," as  officially  declared,  was  "  the  destruction," 
to  use  their  own  language,  "  of  the  existing  class-rule,  by 
"all  means";  that  is,  by  energetic,  relentless,  revolution- 
ary and  international  action,  and  the  establishment  of  so- 
ciety upon  a  communistic  basis,  in  which  there  should  be 
no  government  except  that  of  autonomous  communes. 
It  will  be  seen  also,  from  the  articles  which  follow,  that 
these  doctrines  were  not  only  indorsed,  but  were  cease- 
lessly advocated  by  both  of  these  papers.  To  avoid 
making  our  brief  more  voluminous  than  is  necessary,  we 
insert  only  a  portion  of  the  articles  which  appear  in  the 
record;  the  articles  are  gathered  together  in  the  volume 
of  exhibits. 


i6 


(2.)     ALARM  ARTICLES. 

In  The  Alarm  of  October  25, 1884,  appears  the  follow- 
ing editorial: 

"  THE  SOCIALIST.     (People's  Exhibit  23.) 

"  The  Socialists  are  accused  of  being  bloodthirsty.  This 
•is  not  true.  They,  like  all  other  thinking  -people,  know  that 
a  revolution  must  come.  There  was  a  time  when  competi- 
tion ground  down  so  slowly  that  none  noticed  its  workings. 
But  now,  with  free  schools,  free  press,  steam  and  elec- 
tricity, everything  moves  so  rapidly  that  whichever  course 
it  takes,  people  see  its  aim  and  end.  And  when  anything 
is  moving  against  the  rights  of  the  majority,  it  will  sooner 
or  later  be  stopped.  Whether  the  stopping  and  uprooting 
of  a  bad  -principle  -will  require  bloodshed  depends  first,  on 
how  old  It  is,  and  how  much  the  people  are  receiving  it  as 
a  second  nature,  and  how  much  its  supporters  are  interested 
in  keeping  it  a-going.  And  secondly,  hoiu  strong,  clear 
and  determined  the  opposition  is  when  it  begins  to  oppose. 
A.  weak  opposition,  or  an  opposition  that  is  believed  to  be 
weak,  will  cause  bloodshed,  but  an  opposition  that  is  known 
to  be  sufficiently  strong  for  certain  victory  will  command 
and  obtain  a  bloodless  surrender.  This  is  why  the  com- 
munist and  anarchist  urges  the  people  to  study  their 
school-books  on  chemistry,  and  read  the  dictionaries  and 
cyclopedias  on  the  composition  and  construction  of  all  kinds 
of  explosives,  and  make  themselves  too  strong  to  be  opposed 
with  deadly  weapons.  This  alone  can  insure  against  blood- 
shed. Every  person  can  get  this  knowledge  inside  of  one 
week,  and  a  majority  now  have  one  or  more  books  contain- 
ing all  this  information  right  in  their  own  homes.  And 
every  man  who  is  master  of  these  explosives  cannot  be  even 
approached  by  an  army  of  men.  Therefore,  bloodsheed 
being  useless,  and  justice  being  defenseless,  people  will  be 
forced  to  deal  justly  and  generously  with  each  other. 

"  The  ridiculous  situation  that  requires  men  to  freeze 
because  there  is  too  much  coal  in  the  country,  and  starve 
because  there  is  too  much  bread  in  the  country,  and  go 
naked  because  there  is  too  much  clothing  in  the  country, 


17 

and  lie  out-'doors  because  there  are  too  .many  houses  in 
the  country,  cannot  always  continue,  especially  when  we 
know  that  the  natural  ingenuity  of  invention  is  constantly 
and  rapidly  increasing  this  over-supply  and  glutted  mar- 
ket and  forced  idleness.  We  know  that  there  is  and  can 
be  no  other  remedy  but  to  turn  all  things  into  common 
properly,  and  let  all  partake  of  the  abunc  ance  freely,  and 
allow  none,  under  penalty  of  death,  to  carry  off,  or  hide,  or 
pen  up  any  of  that  abundance  for  any  selfish  motive  -what- 
ever. 

"  Man  is  so  created  that  to  make  him  stand  still  punishes 
him,  and  we  cannot  stop  his  thinking.  Therefore,  we 
know  there  is  energy  in  every  man  that  even  the  man 
himself  cannot  stop  without  causing  himself  suffering. 
From  this  alone,  we  know  for  a  certainty  that  the  world 
would  blossom  anew  every  day  with  beauty  and  abun- 
dance, if  men  were  free  to  place  their  energies  where 
nature  forcibly  directs  them.  Then,  truly,  we  need  take 
no  thought  of  the  morrow,  what  we  shall  eat,  what  we 
shall  drink,  or  what  we  shall  put  on." 

In  the  Alarm  of  November  r,  1884  (People's  Exhibit 
24),  appears  an  editorial,  entitled  "The  Useless  Classes," 
which  begins  by  asserting  that  as  society  is  at  present 
constituted  it  is  the  sole  business  of  numerous  classes  "  to 
"  sustain  the  wicked  right  of  property,"  and  including 
among  the  classes  "lawyers,  ministers,  judges,  legislat- 
"  ures,  jailers,  police,  bankers,  brokers,  peddlers,  nearly 
"  all  storekeepers  and  clerks,  the  armies,  navies,"  etc., 
etc.  It  then  goes  on  to  argue  that,  if  the  system  of  soci- 
ety were  changed,  the  persons  constituting  these  classes 
could  be  put  to  some  useful  employment,  and  ends  by 
stating,  "  destroy  the  right  of  property,"  and  all  this  use- 
less energy  would  be  turned,  by  the  force  of  nature,  to 
useful  production  and  distribution.  Further,  it  says: 

"  How  can  all  this  be  done?  Simply  by  making' our- 
selves masters  of  the  use  of  dynamite,  then  declaring  we 
will  make  no  further  claim  to  ownership  in  anything,  and 
deny  every  other  persorfs  right  to  be  the  owner  of  anything, 


i8 

and  administer  instant  death,  by  any  and  all  means,  to  any 
and  every  person  •who  attempts  to  continue  to  claim  per- 
sonal ownership  in  anything.  This  method,  and  this  alone, 
can  relieve  the  -world  of  this  infernal  monster  called  the 
'  right  of  property? 

"  Let  us  try  and  not  strike  too  soon,  when  our  numbers 
are  too  small,  or  before  more  of  us  understand  the  use  and 
manufacture  of  the  weapons. 

"  To  avoid  unnecessary  bloodshed,  confusion  and  discour- 
agement, we  must  be  prepared,  know  why  we  strike  and 
for  just  what  we  strike,  and  then  strike  in  unison  and  with 
all  our  might. 

"  Our  war  is  not  against  men,  but  against  sj^stems;  yet 
we  must  prepare  to  kill  men  who  will  try  to  defeat  our 
cause,  or  we  will  strive  in  vain. 

"The  rich  are  only  worse  than  the  poor,  because  they 
have  more  power  to  wield  this  infernal  '  property  right,* 
and  because  they  have  more  power  to  reform,  and  take 
less  interest  in  doing  so.  Therefore  it  is  easy  to  see 
where  the  bloodiest  blows  must  be  dealt. 

"  We  can  expect  but  few  or  no  converts  among  the 
the  rich,  and  it  will  be  better  for  our  cause  if  they  do  not 
wait  for  us  to  strike  first." 

In  the  same  issue  of  "  The  Alarm  "  appears  this  editorial 
(People's  Exhibit  25): 

"  The  socialists  are  accused  of  advocating  the  destruc- 
tion of  property.  Their  policy  is  this:  When  they  take 
possession  of  a  store  they  will  declare  it  a  public  store- 
house and  public  goods,  and  any  man  can  take  whatever 
he  needs;  but  any  one  destroying  or  wasting  anything 
or  carrying  off  more  than  he  has  need  of  will  be  consid- 
ered a  public  enemy.  But  in  case  of  an  overpowering 
attack  by  the  police  or  militia,  it  is  better  to  set  fire  to  all 
that  cannot  be  carried  off." 

In  the  same  issue  of  the  same  paper  (People's  Exhibit 
26)  appears  an  article  headed  "  Anarchism,"  as  follows: 


"  ANARCHISM. 

"  The  anarchist  believes  in  peace,  but  not  at  the  expense 
of  liberty.  He  believes  that  all  political  laws  are  enacted 
only  to  force  men  to  do  those  things  they  would  not  nat- 
urally 04'  if  left  untrammeled.  Therefore  he  considers  all 
Apolitical  laws  as  violations  of  the  laws  of  nature  and  the 
rights  of  man.  He  believes  that  if  each  man  held  all 
laws  within  himself,  he  would  be  held  to  a  just  execution 
of  them  by  every  other  man.  Therefore  that  we  can  only 
hope  for  justice  and  liberty  through  the  abolition  of  stat- 
utes and  governments.  He  has  no  faith  in  the  laws  of 
man;  but  all  faith  in  the  laws  of  nature. 

"  He  believes  that  under  any  government  the  more  a 
man  is  governed  the  less  he  is  free.  Therefore,  as  the 
less  government  the  better,  none  at  all  is  best. 

"  He  believes  that  all  governments  tend  to  more  laws, 
instead  of  less,  and  that  therefore  all  governments  ulti- 
mately become  despotisms. 

"  He  believes  the  evil  in  man  only  appears  when  some 
natural  law  or  natural  right  of  that  man  has  been  violated, 
and  therefore,  as  all  statutes  only  operate  when  they  op- 
pose the  natural  will,  they  can  only  operate  to  produce 
evil. 

"  He  believes  that  every  law  of  man's  is  a  '  bone  of 
contention,'  and  that  a  majority  of  the  laws  are  intended 
to  help  some  person  or  class  take  or  hold  some  advantage  of 
another.  He  therefore  demands  the  abolition  of  all  political 
laws  and  the  restoration  of  the  rights  of  man  as  nature  has 
provided.'1'' 

In  the  Alarm  of  November  29,  1884,  (People's  Exhibit 
30),  appears  an  article  denouncing  the  right  of  property. 
It  concludes  as  follows: 

"No  man  has  the  right  to  be  the  owner  of  anything: 
but  every  one  should  use  the  energies  they  do  use  in 
producing  something,  and  no  man  should  pay  them  for 
what  they  produce.  It  is  no  credit  to  a  man  that  he 
spends  his  energies.  If  he  should  stop  his  energies  it 
would  cause  him  pain.  He  spends  his  energy  because  he 
has  to;  he  is  so  created  he  can't  help  it.  Therefore,  no 
man  should  be  paid  for  what  he  produces;  but  in  all  just- 


20 

ice  to  humanity  he  ought  to  be  killed  if  he  will  waste  his 
energies  without  producing  something.  The  moment  you 
pay  a  man  for  what  he  produces  he  will  take  that  pay 
and  then  spend  his  energies  in  taking  advantage  of  some- 
body with  it.  Down  -with  pay,  and  dynamite  the  man 
-who  claims  it;  and  hang  him  ivho  -will  not  let  his  energies 
produce  something1.  This  is  socialism. 

"  Upon  this  principle,  and  this  only,  can  all  humanity 
be  raised  up,  and  upon  this  principle  alone  can  we  stop 
all  this  quarreling,  robbing,  starving  and  throat-cutting. 
There  is  no  reason  on  earth  why  any  living  being  should 
have  less  of  the  benefits  and  pleasures  of  this  world  than 
Vanderbilt  now  possesses.  The  idea  that  the  world  can 
have  no  more  than  there  are  dollars  to  every  representa- 
tive is  ridiculous  nonsense.  There  isn't  money  enough  in 
the  world  to  represent  the  amount  of  fine  combs  and 
tooth-brushes  that  humanity  ought  to  possess.  Down 
with  this  infernal  nonsense  that  we  must  measure  every- 
thing by  money.  We  have  no  just  use  for  money,  or  for 
banks,  or  for  brokers,  or  for  insurers,  or  jailers,  or  for 
any  other  hoodlum  classes  who  are  wickedly  wasting  the 
energy  of  their  whole  lives.  Nothing  but  an  uprising 
of  the  people  and  a  bursting  open  of  all  stores  and 
storehouses  to  the  free  access  of  the  public,  and  a  free 
application  of  dynamite  to  every  one  who  opposes,  will 
relieve  the  world  of  this  infernctl  nightmare  of  prop- 
erty and  wages.  Down  with  such  wretched  nonsense. 
No  rascality  or  stupidity  is  sacred  because  it  is  old. 
Down  with  it!" 

In  the  Alarm  of  November,  29,  1884,  appears  an  ar- 
ticle headed : 

"  The  Black  Flag  !  The  emblem  of  hunger,  unfurled 
by  the  proletariats  of  Chicago.  The  red  flag  borne 
aloft  by  thousands  of  workingmen  on  Thanksgiving 
day.  The  poverty  of  the  poor  is  created  by  the  rob- 
beries of  the  rich.  Speeches,  resolutions  and  a  grand 
demonstration  of  the  unemployed,  the  tramps  and  the 

miserables  of  the  city.  Significant  incidents."  (Exhibit  29.) 

*  *  ****** 

"  Mr.  Parsons  then  called  for  the  resolutions,  which 
were  then  read  as  follows: 


21 

"  «  WHEREAS,  We  have  outlived  the  usefulness  of  the 
wage  and  property  system,  that  is  now  and  must  here- 
after cramp,  limit  and  pnnish  all  increase  of  production, 
and  can  no  longer  gratify  the  necessities,  rights  and  am- 
bitions of  man;  and 

" »  WHEREAS,  The  right  of  property  requires  four 
times  more  effort  to  adjust  it  between  man  and  man  than 
is  required  to  produce,  manufacture  and  distribute  it; 
therefore,  be  it 

"  *  Resolved,  That  property  rights  should  no  longer  be 
maintained  or  respected.  That  the  great  army  of  useless 
workers  (among  whieh  are  the  lawyers,  insurers,  brokers, 
canvassers,  jailers,  police,  politicians,  armies  and  navies, 
including  all  useless  employes,  whose  sole  business  is  to 
adjust  property  claims  between  man  and  man,  should  be 
deprived  of  this  useless  and  corrupting  employment,  and 
be  allowed  to  spend  their  energies  producing,  manufact- 
uring and  delivering  the  necessaries  and  luxuries  of  life. 

"  *  And  this  is  impossible  so  long  as  man  continues  to 
pay  or  receive  pay  for  production;  therefore,  be  it  fur- 
ther 

"  '  Resolved,  That  no  man  shall  pay  for  anything,  or 
receive  pay  for  anything,  or  deprive  himself  of  what  he 
may  desire  that  he  finds  out  of  use  or  vacant.  While 
none  can  eat  more  than  they  ought,  under  any  system,  or 
wear  more  than  one  suit  of  clothes  at  a  time,  or  occupy 
more  than  one  house  at  a  time,  yet,  as  a  free  access  to  all 
will  require  more  production;  therefore,  be  it  further 

"  '  Resolved,  That  any  person  who  will  not  spend  a 
reasonable  portion  of  energy  in  the  production,  manufact- 
ure or  distribution  of  the  necessaries,  comforts  and  lux- 
uries of  life  is  the  enemy  of  all  mankind  and  ought  to  be 
treated  as  such.  He  who  will  wilfully  or  maliciously 
waste  is  no  better. 

"  As  this  system  cannot  be  introduced  against  existing 
ignorance,  selfishness  and  distrust  -without  the  force  of  arms 
and  strong  explosives,  therefore,  be  it 

" '  Resolved,  That  when  all  stores,  storehouses,  vacant  tene- 
ments and  transporting  property  are  thrown  open  and  held 
open  to  the  J^ree  access  of  the  general  public;  the  good  of  man- 
kind and  the  saving  of  blood  requires  that  all  forcible  op- 
position should  be  dealt  with  summarily  as  fast  as  it  may 


22 

•present  itself*  But  none  should  be  harmed  or  offended  for 
holding  opposite  opinions;  and  lastly  be  it 

"'  Resolved,  That  as  natural  law  provides  that  the  more 
one  has  the  more  he  wants,  therefore  the  gratification  of 
human  desires  only  can  stimulate  human  ambition.  There- 
fore our  policy  is  wise,  humane  and  practical  and  ought  to 
be  enforced  at  the  earliest  possible  moment,  with  a  just  re- 
"gard  for  numbers  and  implements. 

"  «  As  an  expression  of  our  thankfulness  in  this  Thanks- 
giving Day, 

"  '  Resolved,  That  we  are  thankful  because  we  have 
learned  the  true  cause  of  poverty  and  know  the  remedy, 
and  can  only  be  more  thankful  when  the  principles  are 
put  in  force." 

Then  follows  a  description  of  other  proceedings  of  the 
meeting. 

In  the  Alarm  of  January  13,  1885,  's  a  contributed 
article  signed  "  C.  S.  G.,"  entitled  "Force!"  (People's 
Exhibit  34)  "  The  only  Defense  against  Injustice  and 
Oppression,"  the  last  part  of  which  is  as  follows: 

***#**  #  * 

"  We  are  told  that  force  is  cruel.  But  this  is  only  true 
when  opposition  is  less  cruel.  If  the  opposition  is  a  re- 
lentless power,  that  is,  starving,  freezing,  exposing  and 
depriving  tens  of  thousands,  and  the  application  of  force 
would  require  less  suffering  while  removing  the  old  cause, 
then  the  force  is  humane.  Seeing  the  amount  of  needless 
suffering  all  about  us,  ive  say  a  vigorous  use  of  dynamite  is 
both  humane  and  economical.  It  will  at  the  expense  of  less 
suffering  prevent  more.  It  is  not  humane  to  compel  ten 
persons  to  starve  to  death  when  the  execution  of  five  per- 
sons would  prevent  it. 

"  //  is  upon  this  theory  that  -we  advocate  the  use  of  dyna- 
mite. 

"  //  is  clearly  more  humane  to  blorv  ten  men  into  eternity 
than  to  make  ten  men  starve  to  death" 

In  the  Alarm  of  February  7,  1885  (People's  Exhibit  37), 


23 

appears  a  poem,  entitled  "  The  War  Cry,"  signed  "  Gor- 
such."     Two  of  the  stanzas  we  quote: 

"  Our  demand  is  full  surrender,  compromise  we  shall  not  heed, 

In  the  past  too  oft  we've  been  deceived  and  misled  in  our  need. 

All  the  hoarded  wealth  of  ages,  all  that  toil  doth  forge  to-day, 

Ye  shall  yield,  or  righteous  vengeance  shall  o'ertake  and  claim  her 

prey. 
******** 

"  Then  our  battle  cry  re-echo,  '  Dynamite  shall  free  the  slave!  ' 
All  ye  men  who  fear  not,  '  forward !'  tho'  ye  fill  a  martyr's  grave; 
Yet  the  tyrant  private  property  dethrone,  the  coming  race, 
Bright  with  glowing  fire  of  freedom,  shall  thy  name  in  honor  trace. 

"  GORSUCH." 

In  the  Alarm  of  February  21,  1885  (People's  Exhibit 
38),  is  the  following  editorial,  written  by  the  defendant 
Parsons: 

"  THE  DYNAMITE  TERROR. 

"  '  As  for  the  American  people,  the  thing  to  bear  in  mind 
is  that  here  the  ballot-box  can  be  so  wielded  that  there 
shall  be  no  need  of  resorting  to  force  for  the  cure  of  any 
public  evil,  however  deep-rcoted  or  malignant.'— John 
Swinton's  Paper. 

"  The  above  is  the  concluding  paragraph  of  a  lengthy 
article  of  John  Swinton's  paper  last  week.  We  are  sur- 
prised to  see  our  old  friend  bow  at  the  shrine  of  that  capi- 
talistic humbug — the  ballot. 

"America  is  not  a  free  country.  The  economic  condi- 
tions of  the  workers  here  are  precisely  the  same  as  they 
are  in  Europe.  A  wage-slave  is  a  slave  everywhere,  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  country  he  may  happen  to  have 
been  born  in  or  made  the  living  in. 

"  Friend  Swinton,  how  can  the  industrially  enslaved  be 
politically  free?  How  can  a  man  without  the  right  to  live 
possess  the  right  to  vote? 

"  You  give  the  facts  and  illustrations  in  your  own  col- 
umns which  prove  that  the  hand  which  holds  the  bread 
ean  alone  wield  the  ballot. 

"  What  do  you  mean  by  '  public  evils?  '  Do  you  mean 
the  political  offices,  with  its  bribery  and  corruption?  And 
that  all  the  workers  have  to  do  in  order  to  be  saved  is  to 
4  turn  the  rascals  out'?  Well,  from  a  democratic  point 
of  view,  Cleveland  will  do  that  after  the  4th  of  March. 


24 

next.  The  'outs'  will  go  in,  and  'ins'  will  go  out.  But 
surely  you  cannot  mean  that  the  wage-slave  will  no 
longer  be  a  slave? 

"  Here  in  America  the  worker  is  deprived  of  life,  lib- 
erty and  happiness  (the  Declaration  of  Independence  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding),  in  spite  of,  yes,  mainly  by 
means  of  the  ballot.  With  a  copy  of  the  declaration  in 
one  hand  and  the  ballot  in  the  other,  the  wage-worker  is 
deluded  into  the  belief  that  he  is  a  free  man  and  a  sov- 
ereign. 

"The  poor  have  no  votes;  poverty  can't  vote — for  it- 
self. Wealth  alone  can  vote.  The  workers  vote  wrong, 
because  they  are  poor,  and  are  poor  because  they  are 
robbed.  Robbed  of  their  inheritance — the  land;  robbed 
of  their  right  to  the  free  use  of  all  the  resources  of  life — 
the  means  of  existence.  The  workers  are  deprived  of 
all  opportunitv  to  acquire  and  apply  knowledge.  They 
are  deprived  of  all  access  to  culture  and  refinement.  For 
the  perpetuation  of  these  evils  they  have  to  thank  govern- 
ment, the  state,  the  ballot-box  and  the  politicians.  Poli- 
ticians and  the  state  are  the  legitimate,  inevitable  out- 
growth of  the  profit-mongering  system  of  wage-slavery, 
based  upon  competition  and  wages.  We  cannot  get  rid 
of  the  former  until  we  remove  the  latter. 

"  The  deep-rooted,  malignant  evil  which  compels  the 
wealth-producers  to  become  the  independent  hirelings  of 
a  few  capitalistic  czars  cannot  be  reached  by  means  of 
the  ballot. 

"  The  ballot  can  be  wielded  by  free  men  alone;  bid 
slaves  can  only  revolt  and  rise  in  insurrection  against 
their  despoilers. 

"  Let  us  bear  in  mind  the  fact  that  here  in  America, 
as  elsewhere,  the  worker  is  held  in  economic  bondage  by 
the  use  of  force,  and  the  employment  of  force,  therefore, 
becomes  a  necessity  to  his  economic  emancipation!  Pov- 
erty cant  vote!  P." 

In  the  same  number  of  the  Alarm  (People's  Exhibit  39) 
is  a  contributed  article,  signed  "  T.  Lizius,  Indianapolis, 
Ind.,"  as  follows: 


25 

'k  DYNAMITE. 

"  Dynamite!  Of  all  the  good  stuff,  this  is  the  stuff. 
Stuff  several  pounds  of  this  sublime  stuff  into  an  inch 
pipe,  gas  or  water  pipe,  plug  lip  both  ends,  insert  a 
cap  with  a  fuse  attached,  place  this  in  the  immediate 
neighborhood  of  a  lot  of  rich  loafers  w/io  live  by  the 
sweat  of  other  people  s  brows,  and  light  the  fuse.  A 
most  cheerful  and  gratifying  result  will  follow.  In 
giving  dynamite  to  the  down-trodden  millions  of  the 
globe,  science  has  done  its  best  work.  The  dear  stuff 
can  be  carried  around  in  the  pocket  without  danger, 
while  it  is  a  formidable  weapon  against  any  force  of 
militia,  police  or  detectives  that  may  want  to  stifle  the 
cry  for  justice  that  goes  forth  from  the  plundered 
slaves.  It  is  something  not  very  ornamental,  but  ex- 
ceedingly useful.  It  can  be  ^lsed  against  persons  and 
tilings;  it  is  better  to  use  it  against  the  Jormer  than 
against  bricks  and  masonry.  It  is  a  genuine  boon  for  the 
disinherited,  while  it  brings  terror  and  fear  to  the 
robbers.  It  brings  terror  only  to  the  guilty,  and  conse- 
quently the  senator  who  introduced  a  bill  in  Congress  to 
stop  its  manufacture  and  use  must  be  guilty  of  something. 
He  fears  the  wrath  of  an  outraged  people  that  has  been 
duped  and  swindled  by  him  and  his  like.  The  same  must 
be  the  case  with  the  'servant 'of  the  people  who  intro- 
duced a  like  measure  in  the  Senate  of  the  Indiana  Legis- 
lature. All  the  good  this  will  do.  Like  everything  else, 
the  more  you  prohibit  it,  the  more  it  will  be  done.  Dyna- 
mite is  like  Banquo's  ghost:  it  keeps  on  fooling  around 
somewhere  or  other,  in  spite  of  his  satanic  majesty.  A 
pound  of  this  good  stuff  beats  a  bushel  of  ballots  all 
Jiol/ow,  and  dont  you  forget  it.  Our  lawmakers 
might  as  well  try  to  sit  down  on  the  crater  of  a  volcano 
or  a  bayonet  as  to  endeavor  to  stop  the  manufacture  and 
use  of  dynamite.  It  takes  more  justice  and  right  than  is 
contained  in  laws  to  quiet  the  spirit  of  unrest.  If  work- 
ingmen  would  be  truly  free,  they  must  learn  to  know 
why  they  are  slaves.  They  must  rise  above  petty  preju- 
dice and  learn  to  think.  From  thought  to  action  is  not 
far,  and  when  the  worker  has  seen  the  change,  he  need 
but  look  a  little  closer  to  Jind  near  at  hand  the  sledge 
<~t  'it/i  which  to  shatter  every  link.  The  sledge  is  dynamite, 

"  INDIANAPOLIS,  IND.  T.  LIZIUS." 


In  the  Alarm  of  March  7,  1885,  an  article  (People's 
Exhibit  40)  signed  "  P."  (Parsons),  entitled  "  Our  Agi- 
tators," shows  the  extent  to  which  at  that  time  the  work 
of  propagation  was  carried  on. 

In  the  Alarm  of  May  2,  1885,  under  the  title  of  "  Our 
Vampires,"  is  an  article  (People's  Exhibit  52)  describing  a 
public  meeting  called  for  the  purpose  of  denouncing  the 
board  of  trade,  whose  new  building  was  that  night  dedi- 
cated. In  the  article  appears  a  speech  which  was  deliv- 
ered on  that  occasion  by  A.  R.  Parsons,  the  editor  of  the 
paper,  in  which,  after  denouncing  the  members  of  the 
board  of  trade  as  a  gang  of  legalized  thieves,  and  de- 
nouncing the  present  social  institutions  as  responsible  for 
the  wrong  suffered  by  the  working  classes,  he  says : 

"  The  present  social  system  makes  private  property  of 
the  means  of  labor  and  the  resources  of  life — capital — 
and  thereby  creates  classes  and  inequalities,  conferring 
upon  the  holders  of  property  the  power  to  live  upon  the 
labor  product  of  the  propertyless.  Whoever  owns  our 
bread  owns  our  ballots,  for  a  man  who  must  sell  his  labor 
or  starve  must  sell  his  vote  when  the  same  alternative  is 
presented.  The  inequalities  of  our  social  system,  its 
classes,  its  privileges,  its  enforced  poverty  and  misery, 
arises  out  of  the  institution  of  private  poverty,  and  so  long 
as  this  system  prevails  our  wives  and  children  will  be 
driven  to  toil,  while  their  fathers  and  brothers  are  thrown 
into  enforced  idleness,  and  the  men  of  the  board  of  trade 
and  all  other  profitmongers  and  legalized  gamblers  who- 
live  by  fleecing  the  people  will  continue  to  accumulate 
millions  at  the  expense  of  their  helpless  victims.  This 
grand  conspiracy  against  our  liberty  and  lives  is  main- 
tained and  upheld  by  statute  law  and  the  constitu- 
tion and  enforced  by  the  military  arms  of  the  state. 
If  we  ivould  achieve  our  liberation  from  economic 
bondage  and  acquire  our  natural  right  to  life  and  lib- 
erty, every  man  must  lay  by  a  part  of  his  tcagcs,  buy 
a  Colt's  navy  revolver  {cheers,  and  '  that's  what  we 
want ') ,  a  Winchester  rifle  (a  voice:  '  And  ten  pounds 


27 

of  dynamite!  we  will  wake  it  ourselves'}  and  learn 
how  to  niake  and  to  use  dynamite.  (Cheers.}  TJicn 
raise  the  flag  of  rebellion  (cries  of  'Bravo'  and 
eheers^,  tJie  scarlet  banner  of  liberty,  fraternity, 
equality,  and  strike  down  to  the  earth  every  tyrant 
.that  lives  upon  this  globe.  (  Clieers,  and  cries  of  '  Vive 
la  Commune!}  'J\  rants  have  no  right  which  we 
sJiould  respect.  Until  this  is  done  you  will  continue  to 
be  robbed,  to  be  plundered,  to  be  at  the  uicrcy  of  the 
privileged  Jew;  therefore  agitate  for  the  purpose  of  or- 
ganization, organize  for  the  piir pose  of  rebellion,  for 
wage-slaves  have  nothing  to  lose  but  their  chains;  they 
have  a  world  of  freedom  and  happiness  to  win. 
(Cheers}  " 

An  article  from  the  same  paper  (People's  Exhibit  42) 
dated  April  18,  1885,  headed  "Assassination,"  is  as  follows: 

"  ASSASSINATION." 

"  Assassination  is  stigmatized  as  barbarous  and  cow- 
ardly- This  is  sometimes  true,  especially  when  one  gov- 
ernment employs  assassins  against  another,  or  when  one 
person  adopts  this  course  against  another.  But  there  are 
instances  where  assassination  is  both  brave  arid  humane, 
and  wise  also. 

"The  effort  to  abolish  government  cannot  be  done  by 
the  accepted  methods  of  warfare,  because  it  requires  the 
organization  of  a  government  to  abolish  it,  stronger  than 
the  one  abolished,  thus  leaving  a  stronger  government  in 
existence  than  before.  Such  a  method  is  literally  foolish, 
for  all  the  blood,  treasure  and  effort  has  been  worse  than 
wasted. 

"  The  moment  the  abolition  of  a  government  is  sug- 
gested, the  mind  pictures  the  uprising  of  a  hundred  little 
despotic  governments  on  every  hand,  quarreling  among 
themselves  and  domineering  over  the  unorganized  people, 
This  fact  suggests  the  idea  that  the  -present  governments 
must  be  destroyed,  only  in  a  manner  that  will  -prevent  the 
organization  or  rise  of  any  and  all  other  governments, 
•whether  it  be  a  government  of  three  men  or  three  hundred 
million.  JVo  government  can  exist  without  a  head,  and  by 
assassinating  the  head  just  as  fast  as  a  government  head  a p- 


28 

-pears  the  government  can   be  destroyed;  and  by  this  same 
process  all  other  governments  can  be  kept  out  of  existence. 

"  This  is  the  policy  of  the  nihilist  of  Russia,  and  the 
moment  it  gets  any  popular  support  throughout  civiliza- 
tion all  governments  will  disappear  forever.  Those  gov- 
ernments least  offensive  to  the  people  should  be  destroyed 
last.  All  governments  exist  by  the  abridgment  of  hu- 
man liberty,  and  the  more  government  the  less  liberty. 
He  alone  is  free  who  submits  to  no  government.  All 
governments  are  domineering  powers,  and  any  domineer- 
ing power  is  a  natural  enemy  to  all  mankind  and  ought  to 
be  treated  as  such. 

"  Assassination  will  remove  the  evil  from  the  face  of  the 
earth. 

"  Man  will  always  have  and  always  need  advisers, 
teachers  and  leaders  in  all  departments  of  life,  but  bosses, 
jailers  and  drivers  are  unnecessary. 

"  Man's  leader  is  his  friend.  His  driver  is  his  enemy. 
This  distinction  should  be  understood,  and  the  parties 
should  be  dealt  with  accordingly.  Assassination  -properly 
applied  is  wise?  just,  humane  and  brave.  For  freedom,  all 
things  are  just.  G." 

In  the  Alarm  of  Sept.  5,  1885,  is  an  article  headed 
"  Eight  Hours.  Our  Reply/'  signed  "  A."  (People's  Ex- 
hibit 50),  which  antagonizes  the  eight-hour  movement 
then  being  agitated  by  the  workingmen,  on  the  ground 
that  the  shortening  of  the  hours  of  labor  will  be  of  no 
benefit  to  the  working  classes;  that  the  only  method  of 
improving  their  condition  is  by  a  radical  change  in  the 
system  of  society.  It  closes  as  follows: 

"  And  this  man  poises  as  a  critic  on  anarchism!  He 
ought  to  go  in  partnership  with  Mr.  Powderly,  the  man 
with  the  '  dynamite  of  ideas',  who,  in  his  own  lan- 
guage, '  does  not  fight  persons,  but  systems'. 

"  This  is  exactly  the  same  thing  as  if  England  had 
said:  '  Why,  we  don 't  fight  the  Egyptian  people;  what 
we  fight  is  Egypt'  We  think  Mr.  Powderly  and  Ed- 
monston  would  pull  well  together. 

"  Now,  in  regard  to  the  proposed  strike  next  spring,  a 


29 

few  practical  words  to  our  comrades.  The  number  of 
organized  wage-workers  in  this  country  may  be  about 
800,000;  the  number  of  the  unemployed  about  2,000,- 
ooo.  Will  the  manufacturing  kings  grant  the  modest 
request  under  such  circumstances?  No,  sir.  The  small 
ones  cannot,  and  the  big  ones  will  not.  They  will  then 
draw  from  the  army  of  unemployed;  the  strikers  will  at- 
tempt to  stop  them.  Then  comes  the  police  and  the  mili- 
tia. *  *  Say,  workingmen,  are  you  prepared  to 
meet  the  latter;  are  you  armed?" 

In  the  Alarm  of  March  20,  1886  (People's  Exhibit  57), 
appears  the  following,  signed  "  P.,"  as  a  note  to  an  article: 

"  Argument  is  no  good  unless  based  on  force.  You 
must  be  able  to  make  your  antagonist  stand  still  and 
listen  to  your  plea.  When  he  refuses  to  do  that,  the  use 
of  force  becomes  a  necessity." 

In  the  Alarm  of  April  24, 1886  (People's  Exhibit  61),  is 
an  article  entitled  "  Knaves  or  Fools?"  which  is  of  great 
significance  in  view  of  the  occurrences  which  followed  a 
few  days  later.  It  is  as  follows: 

u  KNAVES  OR  FOOLS  ? 

"  In  the  contest  now  going  on  between  labor  and  capi- 
tal the  pretended  leaders  and  official  mouthpieces  of  trades 
unions  and  Knights  of  Labor  assemblies  are  attempting  to 
prevent  the  toiling  masses  from  using  the  best,  most  ef- 
fective and  only  successful  means  against  the  predatory 
beasts  which  must  be  exterminated  as  public  enemies  dur- 
ing strikes  and  boycots,  our  only  weapons  against  'cap- 
italistic conspiracy  and  organized  murder,  starvation  and 
wage-slavery.  These  flunkies  and  lickspittles  speculate 
on  their  chances  of  securing  places  at  the  public  crib  as 
influential  agitators,  or  as  foremen  and  '  sweaters  '  over 
their  fellow-workers,  or  some  other  sinecure;  others  are 
tickled  by  the  praises  of  the  capitalistic  press,  and,  by 
being  quoted  as  representative  reformers  in  interviews 
published  by  such  labor  organs  as  the  Chicago  Times,. 
Mail,  Tribune,  Nuisance,  etc.  These  enemies  of  labor 


•*  3° 

manage  to  get  themselves  elected  to  trades  assemblies 
and  other  representative  bodies  of  organized  labor,  where 
they  play  the  role  of  harmonizers  and  peacemakers  be- 
tween the  despoiled  wage-slaves  and  their  despoilers. 
The  toiling  masses  never  gave  Mr.  Powderly  or  any  other 
man  the  authority  to  issue  a  proclamation  against  the  en- 
forcement of  the  eight-hour  law  from  and  after  May  ist, 
nor  has  he  been  empowered  by  any  plebiscite  to  forbid 
strikes  and  boycots,  and  to  preach  the  harmony  of  capital 
and  labor  as  against  the  gospel  of  discontent.  The 
Knights  of  Labor,  trade  unionists  and  other  working  people 
repudiate  by  their  action  the  foolish  talk  of  such  men. 
The  social  war  has  come,  and  whoever  is  not  with  us 
.is  against  us." 


(3.)     ARBEITER  ZEITUNG  ARTICLES. 
EXHIBIT  105. 

In  the  issue  of  February  12,  1885,  is  this  editorial: 

"When  a  common  '  philister '  declares  *  *  *  'It 
is  true  it  had  been  proven  that  the  locomotive  which 
caused  the  injury  of  the  plaintiff  was  in  a  dangerous  con- 
dition, but  as  he  (the  plaintiff)  had  also  been  informed 
thereof,  and  notwithstanding  continued  his  work,  then  he 
alone  has  to  bear  the  consequences  of  his  risk.' 

"  It  was  the  Sormonic  Judge  Bailey  who  gave  this 
decision  in  the  case  of  Albert  Standard  against  the  Chi- 
cago, Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  railway,  and  there  set 
aside  the  verdict  of  the  jury  which  gave  the  plaintiff 
$500  damages.  Standard  was  an  employe  of  the  said 
railway  company.  The  locomotive  which  he  run  was  in 
a  dangerous  condition.  The  management  of  the  road 
knew  this.  Whether  the  plaintiff  had  knowledge  of  it  or 
not  is  immaterial.  As  an  employe,  he  had  to  do  as  the 
management  commanded. 

"  '  Had  to?  '  asks  the  philister;  '  couldn't  he  have  said 
that  he  refused  to  mount  the  locomotive  until  it  was  in 
good  repair  and  good  condition?'  Of  course  he  could 
have  done  that,  for  it  was  certainly  the  best  thing;  but  at 
the  same  time  he  could  have  packed  his  traps  as  a  free- 


man,  and  could  have  looked  for  another  master.  This 
alternative  would  have  been  no  less  dangerous  than  to- 
have  remained  at  his  post  and  risked  his  life.  If,  when 
one  has  a  choice  between  death  by  starvation  and  cold, 
on  the  one  side,  and  a  risk  or  danger  to  be  sent  suddenly 
into  the  beautiful  beyond  by  a  boiler  explosion,  then  he 
would  be  a  fool  not  to  prefer  the  latter.  The  liberty  of 
the  plaintiff,  then,  simply  consisted  in  this  choice  to  de- 
cide in  favor  of  one  of  two  methods  of  destruction,  which- 
ever might  be  most  agreeable  to  him. 

"  Hozv  dearly  Judge  Bailey  sold  this  decision  we  do  not 
knozv;  it  has  nothing"  to  do  Tuith  the  case,  either. 

"  Perhaps  the  -proletarians  ivill  occasionally  pay  the 
courageous  gentleman  for  his  decision  by  according  to  hint 
also  the  freedom  of  choice  between  a  hemp  necktie  and  a 
nitro-glycerinc  pilL  (Signed]  <-A.S.'>'>' 

EXHIBIT  106. 

In  the  issue  of  February  23,  1885,  is  an  editorial: 

"  Thicker  and  thicker  the  clouds  gather  around  the  po- 
litical and  social  horizon  of  the  world,  more  and  more  the 
darkness  increases.  Without  laying  claim  to  the  reputa- 
tion of  a  prophet,  one  can  say  with  certainty  that  this  can- 
not end  without  a  mighty  storm,  bringing  terror  and 
blessing,  destruction  and  freedom.  Discontention  or 
hatred  of  all  the  corrupt  and  rotten  that  is  existing  grows 
and  prospers  everywhere.  The  struggle  between  the 
parties  is  tapering,  the  diplomatic  machinations  of  the  so- 
called  statesmen  have  reached  their  culminating  point. 

"  The  already  approaching  revolution  promises  to  be 
much  grander  and  more  terrible  than  that  at  the  close 
of  the  last  century,  which  only  broke  out  in  one  coimtry. 
The  common  revolution  will  be  general,  for  it  makes 
itself  already  felt  everywhere  and  generally;  it  will 
demand  more  sacrifices,  for  the  number  of  those  over 
whom  we  have  to  sit  in  judgment  is  noiv  much  greater 
than  tJiat  of  the  last  century  T 


32 
EXHIBIT  107. 

March  2,  1885,  an  editorial: 

<(  *  *  *  fjut  our  censure  is  not  directed  only  against 
the  workingmen  of  Philadelphia;  it  strikes  especially  and  in 
much  higher  degree  those  dirty  souls  who  carry  on  as  a  bus- 
iness the  quieting  of  the  -working  class  under  idle  promises 
of  reforms  in  the  near  future.  The  workingmen  believe 
the  promises  of  these  false  prophets  and  go  to  sleep,  and 
when  then  a  thing  happens  like  that  in  question  then  the 
dupes  stand  about  with  empty  hands  and  open  mouths, 
allow  their  heads  to  be  knocked  in  as  if  that  was  the 
proper  thing,  and  find  comfort  in  the  thought  of  the  beau- 
tiful promises  of  their  prophets. 

"  That  much  is  sure,  that  thing  could  not  have  hap- 
pened in  Chicago  without  placing  for  exhibition  on  the 
telegraph  wires  and  cornices  of  houses  a  dozen  cadavers 
of  policemen  in  pieces  for  each  broken  skull  of  a  working- 
man.  And  this  is  due  solely  and -purely  to  the  revolutionary 
•propaganda  carried  on  here.  Finally  our  respect  to  the 
Philadelphia  women:  They  were  the  only  ones  who  re- 
sisted the  order-beast  and  defended  themselves  with  com- 
mendable bravery. 

"  ( We  wonder]  whether  the  workingmen  in  other 
cities  will  take  a  lesson  from  this  occurrence  and  will 
at  last  supply  themselves  ^vith  weapons,  dynamite  and 
prussic  acid  as  far  as  that  has  not  been  done  yet'1 

EXHIBIT  108. 
March  n,  1885,  an  editorial  notice: 

"  The  community  will  soon  have  to  decide  whether  to 
be  or  not  to  be;  either  the  police  must  be  and  then  the  com- 
munity cannot  be,  or  the  community  must  be  and  then  the 
police  cannot  be;  one  only  of  the  two  is  possible"'' 

EXHIBIT  no. 

March  20,  1885,  an  editorial  notice: 

"  Don't  we  need  to  shoot  the  rascals  dead?  Already 
another  one  of  our  wise  lawgivers  in  Springfield,  Senator 


33 

Frank  Bridges,  has  kicked  the  bucket  of  his  own  accord 
and  has  saved  thereby  another  shot  of  powder.  Every 
little  helps." 

EXHIBIT  112. 

March  23,  1885,  are  editorials  as  follows: 

"  Yet  one  thing  more.  Although  every  day  brings  the 
news  of  collisions  between  armed  murder-serfs  of  the 
bourgeoisie  with  unarmed  crowds  of  people  (strikers 
and  the  like),  we  must  ever  and  again  read  in  the  so- 
called  workingmen's  papers:  discussions  of  the  question 
of  arming  ought  to  be  avoided  in  the  associations  of  the 
proletarian.  We  characterize  such  pacifying  efforts  as 
criminal'' 

"  Each  workingman  ought  to  have  been  armed  long 
ago.  We  leave  it  an  open  question  whether  whole  cor- 
porations are  able  to  completely  fit  themselves  out  in  a 
military  point  of  view  with  all  their  numbers;  but  we  say 
that  each  single  one,  if  he  has  the  necessary  seriousness 
and  the  good-will,  can  arm  himself  little  by  little  very 
easily.  Daggers  and  revolvers  are  easily  to  be 
gotten.  Hand  grenades  are  cheaply  to  be  produced; 
explosives,  too,  can  be  obtained  and  finally  possibilities 
are  also  given  to  buy  arms  on  installments.  To  give 
an  impulse  in  that  direction  one  should  never  tire  of. 

"  For  not  only  the  revolution  proper  approacliing 
with  gigantic  steps  commands  to  prepare  for  it,  but 
also  the  wage  contests  of  to-day  demand  of  us  not  to  en- 
ter into  it  with  empty  hands. 

"  Let  us  understand  the  signs  of  the  times!  Let  us 
have  a  care  for  the  present,  that  we  will  not  be  sur- 
prised by  the  future  unprepared!" 

EXHIBIT  116. 

April  8,  1885,  is  an  editorial  notice: 

"That  is  something  worth  hearing:  A  number  of 
strikers  in  Quincy  yesterday  fired  upon  their  bosses 
and  not  upon  the  scabs.  This  is  recommended  most  em- 
phatically for  imitation,'''' 


34 


EXHIBIT    122. 

May  5,  1885,  is  an  editorial  notice: 

"  When  anywhere  a  small  party  of  workingmen  dare 
to  speak  of  rights  and  privileges,  then  the  'order  '  draw 
together  all  the  murdering  scoundrels  of  the  whole  city, 
and  if  necessary  from  the  whole  country,  to  put  their 
sovereignty  the  more  clearly  before  the  sovereigns.  In 
short,  the  whole  power  of  the  capital,  that  is,  the  entire 
government,  is  ever  ready  to  suppress  the  petty  demon- 
strations of  the  woritingmen  by  force  of  arms  one  after 
another,  now  here,  then  there.  This  would  be  quite  dif- 
ferent if  the  workingmen  of  the  entire  country  could  only 
see  that  their  class  is  in  this  wise  subjected  part  by  part 
without  condition  and  without  repartee.  The  -working- 
men  ought  to  take  aim  at  every  member  of  the  militia,  and 
do  -with  him  as  one  -would  do  -with  some  one  of  whom  it  is 
known  that  he  is  after  taking  one's  life.  It  might  then 
sooner  be  difficult  to  obtain  murdering  tools" 

In  a  small  notice  under  the  same  heading  is  this: 
"Workingmen,  arm  yourselves!  Let  the  butchery  of 
Lemont  be  a  lesson  to  you." 

EXHIBIT  123. 

The  7th  of  May,  1885,  an  editorial  closing: 

"  Before  you  lies  this  blissful  Eden.  The  road  to  it 
leads  over  the  smoking  ruins  of  the  old  world.  Your 
passport  to  it  is  that  banner  which  calls  to  you  in  (laming 
letters  the  word  '•Anarchy?  " 

EXHIBIT  125. 

June  19,  1885,  is  an  editorial: 

«  *  #  *  jf  js  scarcely  necessary  for  us  to  say  in 
conclusion  that  it  would  be  an  insane  undertaking  to  meet 
the  serfs  of  order  with  empty  hands  and  to  allow  one's 
self  to  be  clubbed  down  and  to  be  shot  down  without 
means  of  defense;  taking  this  into  consideration  it  appears 
clearly  that  it  is  more  necessary  than  anything,  else  to  arm 


35 

one's  self  as  soon  as  possible.  .  Therefore,  workingmen,  do 
arm  yourselves  -with  the  most  effectual  means.  The  better 
you  do  this  the  quicker  the  fight  is  fought,  the  sooner  the 
victory  is  yours.  Do  not  delay,  for  that  would  be  your 
ruin.  Z." 

EXHIBIT  126. 

In  a  continuation  of  the  same  article,  June  20,  1885,  the 
author  says  in  conclusion: 

"  Enough  is  now  said  about  the  importance  of  being 
armed,  and  another  question  approaches  us  now  which 
also  must  be  discussed.  We  are  to  go  to  -work  to  sup-ply 
ourselves  as  quickly  as  possible  with  these  useful  things. 
The  price  of  them  is  too  high  than  that  one  could  buy 
them  himself.  The  ^vriter  of  these  lines  expresses  his  opin- 
ion, 2vhirh  docs  not  intend  to  be  too  previons,  to  this  effect, 
that  special  groups  ought  to  form  themselves  to  this  end 
which  are  to  accomplish  these  things  incorporal,  and  which 
collect  and  pay  the  money  in  small  sums  optional  with  each 
one  according'  to  his  means.  Small  contributions  one  can 
easily  spare;  one  does  not  mind  them  and  he  is  in  this  way 
the  sooner  infighting  trim  for  our  purposes.  In  explana- 
tion it  must  also  be  said  that  dynamite  bears  several  names 
here  in  America,  among  others  it  is  known  in  trade  also 
under  the  names  of  Hercules  powder  and  giant  powder. 

"  But  we  will  not  tire  the  reader  any  longer,  and  go 
about  to  close  this  article.  The  fable  reports  to  us  that 
founders  of  great  and  difficult  works  have  been  nursed  by 
wild  beasts,  among  others  Romulns  and  Remus  by  a  she- 
wolf;  that  is  to  be  understood  figuratively.  It  is  not  said 
that  the  founders  of  a  great  work  must  have  something 
wolfish  in  their  individuality,  for  such  a  beginning  is  ever 
the  password  in  a  fig!  t,  and  in  this  it  is  meant  for  one  to 
be  a  wild  animal.  Workingmen,  fellows  in  misery,  men  of 
action!  A  creation  greater,  more  important,  higher,  more 
elevated  than  one  has  ever  been,  it  is  for  us  to  found  and 
establish  ! 

"  The  temple  of  the  unveiled  Goddess  of  Liberty  upon 
the  whole  face  of  the  globe.  But  to  this  end  you  must  be 
wolves,  and  as  such  ye  need  sharp  teeth.  Workingmcn, 
arm  yourselves!" 


36 

In  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  of  June  19,  an  account  is  given 
of  a  meeting  at  Mueller's  Hall  (Exhibit  102),  in  which 
Schwab  is  reported  to  have  spoken  as  follows: 

"  In  America  nothing  is  to  be  expected  from  the  two 
political  parties.  If  they  had  meant  their  promises  seri- 
ously they  would  have  fulfilled  them  long  ago.  Of  polit- 
ical freedom  we  cannot  speak  in  Illinois  in  view  of  the 
existing  laws  against  conspiracy,  which  go  against  the 
vvorkingman,  but  because  we  know  (concluded  the 
speaker)  that  the  ruling  class  will  never  make  any  con- 
cessions, therefore  we  have  once  for  all  severed  our  connec- 
tion -with  it  and  make  all  preparations  for  a  revolution  by 
force" 

"  Hereupon  Comrade  August  Spies  was  given  the 
floor.  He  says  that  he  was  accused  by  a  little  paper  to 
have  called  upon  the  workingtnen  to  commit  criminal 
acts.  He  conceded  that  and  repeated  it  again.  What  is 
crime,  anyway?  When  the  workingman  was  putting 
himself  in  the  possession  of  the  fruits  of  his  labor  stolen 
from  him,  that  was  called  a  crime.  A  pseudo  opponent 
had  remarked  that  he  could  bring  about  the  emancipation 
of  the  working  classes  through  the  ballot.  This,  however? 
was  impossible.  If  the  ballot  had  been  of  advantage  to  the 
workingman,  then  Napoleon  and  Bismarck  never  would 
have  given  the  franchise  to  the  people;  the  ballot  was  serv- 
ing only  for  the  covering  over  of  capitalistic  tyranny  and 
highway  robbery.  The  speaker  pointed  out  the  miserable 
condition  the  coal-diggers  in  the  Hocking  Valley  had 
gotten  into,  and  in  conclusion  he  gave  his  hearers  the  ad- 
vice to  frequently  visit  the  meetings  of  the  International 
Workingmen's  Association,  and  to  read  the  organs  of  the 
workingtnen  for  the  purpose  of  informing  themselves." 

In  the  Arbeiter  Zeiting  of  April  29, 1885  (Exhibit  121), 
is  an  editorial  describing  what  is  known  as  the  board  of 
trade  meeting,  in  which  it  is  stated  that  in  the  procession 
which  marched  past  the  board  of  trade  there  "  marched 
a  strong  company  of  well-armed  comrades  of  the  various 
groups.  Let  us  remark  here  that  with  perhaps  few  ex- 
ceptions they  were  all  well  armed,  and  that  also  the  nitro- 
glycerine pills  were  not  missing.  They  were  prepared  for 
a  probable  attack,  and  if  it  had  come  to  a  collision  there 


37 

would  have  been  pieces.  The  cordons  of  the  police  could 
have  been  quite  excellently  adapted  for  experiments  with 
explosives!  About  twenty  detectives  were  loitering 
about  the  Market  square  at  the  beginning  and  then  dis- 
appeared. That  explains  the  keeping  back  of  our  other- 
wise impertinent  order — scoundrels." 

EXHHIBIT    127. 

An  editorial  on  the  24th  of  June,  1885,  closes  as  follows: 

"  Fellows!  Agitators!  Dark,  threatening  economical 
storm-clouds  have  arisen  in  the  United  States;  they  be- 
come thicker  above  our  heads;  they  will  discharge  them- 
selves and  bring  a  flood  of  inexpressible  misery  upon 
us.  A  terrible  crisis  is  coming.  Let  us  close  our  ranks 
and  do  not  let  us  pierce  our  own  flesh,,  but  that  of  capital. 
The  time  is  too  serious.  Let  us  rather  see  in  every  com- 
rade a  welcome  fellow-combatant.  Let  us  do  this,  and 
then  the  day  of  liberation,  which  will  be  celebrated  here 
in  a  short  time  and  which  celebration  must  seem  to  us  as 
derisive  laughter  of  hell,  will  soon  be  followed  by  the  true 
and  real  day  of  liberation ;  that  is  our  most  earnest  desire." 

In  the  issue  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  October  5, 
1885  (People's  Exhibit  76),  is  an  editorial  which  begins 
as  follows: 

"  We  have  seen  that  even  in  England,  without  excep- 
tional laws,  and  even  under  the  cover  of  a  semblance  of 
political  freedom,  socialistic  meetings  have  been  dispersed 
and  the  speakers  arrested  and  punished.  In  America, 
where  the  prosecution  of  the  socialists  is-  in  full  bloom 
since  about  a  year,  it  is  just  the  like." 

The  article  then  goes  on  to  say  that  the  eight  hour 
movement  and  strikes  are  of  no  advantage  to  the  laboring 
classes,  and  ends  as  follows: 

"  The  question  which  presents  itself  to  the  wage-worker 
is  this:  Will  you  look  on  quietly  that  they  eject  in  such 
manner  those  who  have  shown  themselves  most  willing 
to  be  sacrificed,  and  that  they  are  driven  from  house  and 


38 

home  and  persecuted  with  the  whip  of  hunger — will  you 
or  will  you  not?  and  if  they  do  not  want  that,  there  is  no 
other  way  than  to  become  immediately  soldiers  of  the  revo- 
lutionary army,  and  establish  conspiring  groups,  and  let  the 
ruins  fall  on  the  home  of  such.'1'' 

In  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  October  8,  1885  (People's 
Exhibit  75),  is  this  editorial  note: 

"  EDITORIAL. 

"  All  organized  workingmen  in  this  country,  no  matter 
what  views  they  might  have  otherwise,  should  be  united  on 
one  point:  they  should  engage  in  a  general  prosecution  of 
Pinkerton's  secret  police.  No  day  should  pass  without 
a  report  being  heard  from  one  place  or  another  of  the 
finding  of  a  carcass  of  one  of  Pinkerton's.  That  this 
should  be  kept  up  until  nobody  would  consent  to  become 
the  blood-hound  of  these  assassins." 

In  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  December  28,  1885  (Peo- 
ple's Exhibit  80),  is  an  editorial,  which  is  as  follows: 

"  EDITORIAL. 

"  At  last  Chicago  also  has  its  dynamite  sensation.  Last 
Saturday  morning,  before  the  door  of  the  palace  whose 
proprietor  is  Lambert  Tree,  a  little  can  was  found,  which, 
as  it  was  afterwards  shown,  contained  dynamite,  the 
fuse  partially  burned  up,  indicating  that  there  was  a 
terrible  attack,  which  had  only  failed  on  account  of  the 
unaccountable  extinguishing  of  the  fuse;  evidently  the 
dynamiter  proposed  to  explode  into  the  moon  this  big 
stone  palace  with  a  quarter  of  a  pound  of  dynamite.  And 
especially  that  fact  speaks  for  the  correctness  of  this 
theory,  that  he  chose  such  a  small  quantity,  and  that  he 
put  it  in  the  stairs  so  carefully  and  so  cleanly  the  terrible 
bit  of — well,  of  course,  an  anarchist. 

"Such  clumsy  humbug  has  never  before  come  to  our 
notice.  No  man  who  has  a  little  experience  needs  doubt 
for  a  moment  who  the  perpetrator  was.  A  fuse  once 
ignited  in  a  dry  night  is  never  extinguished  by  itself. 


39 

The  explanation  of  the  shrewd  police  that  the  wind  had. 
extinguished  it  shows  the  amount  of  culture  of  these  pro- 
tectors of  law  and  order. 

"  To  be  brief,  that  tin  can,  with  the  explosive  and  par- 
tially burned  fuse,  was  put  there  by  the  firm  of  Pinkerton,. 
a  very  ordinary  business  trick  of  that  despicable  gang;  to 
give  a  serious  aspect  to  that  attack,  the  end  of  the  fuse 
was  allowed  to  burn  before  it  was  put  into  the  can.  The 
citizens  will  be  excited  about  this  '  diabolical '  plot,  and  all. 
means  must  be  engaged  to  find  out  the  perpetrators. 
They  call  on  Pinkerton,  who  at  once  puts  three  men  at 
eight  dollars  a  day  at  their  disposal.  Now  they  have  a 
sure  trace  of  the  perpetrator,  he  cannot  fail  to  fall  into 
their  hands,  and  the  engagement  must  be  prolonged.  To 
prove  that  they  were  not  idle,  a  poor  devil  is  arrested 
once  in  a  while,  etc. 

"  We  want  to  caution  our  capitalistic  fellow-citizens 
against  this  last  attack  of  the  Pinkertons  upon  their 
pockets,  at  the  same  time  we  want  to  advise  them  that  true 
dynamiters  are  not  so  stupid  as  to  enjoy  such  child's  -play. 
They  do  not  joke  in  such  matters,  they  do  not  blast  a  stone 
palace  -with  a  quarter  of  a  pound  of  dynamite  by  laying  it 
on  the  steps,  and  if  they  do  tinder  take  something  like  that, 
the  fuse  does  notfail.^ 

In  the  issue  of  the  same  paper  of  December  29,  1885 
(People's  Exhibit  8 1 ),  is  a  report  of  a  meeting  of  the  north 
side  group  at  58  Clybourn  avenue,  which  is  as  follows: 

"The  following  resolutions  were  adopted: 
"  This  assembly  declares  that  the  north  side  group,  I. 
A.  A.,  pledges  itself  to  work  with  all  means  for  the  intro- 
duction of  the  eight -hour  day,  beginning  on  the  ist  of 
May,  1886.  At  the  same  time  the  north  side  group  cau- 
tions the  ivorkingmen  not  to  meet  the  enemy  unarmed  on  the 
ist  of  May"  etc. 

In  the  issue  of  the  same  paper  of  January  22,  1886 
(People's  Exhibit  85),  is  a  letter  signed  "  R.  B.,"  which  is 
as  follows: 


4o 

"  CHICAGO,  January  21,  1886. 

"DEAR  MR.  EDITOR:  Taking  advantage  of  your  per- 
mission to  publish  views  of  the  eight-hour  movement  in 
your  valuable  columns,  I  beg  leave  to  give  the  following 
as  my  views.  I  am  neither  a  member  of  the  Arbeiter 
Association  nor  the  Social  Arbeiter  Parthei  or  any  other 
workingman's  association,  but  I  think  I  can  take  it  for 
granted  that  all  workingmen,  organized  or  unorganized, 
work  for  the  same  end,  namely,  the  liberation  of  the 
working  classes  to-day  under  the  degradation  and  slavery 
under  which  it  surfers: 

"  The  eight-hour  question  is  not,  or  at  least  should  not 
be,  the  final  end  of  the  present  organization,  but  in  com- 
parison to  the  present  state  of  things,  a  progress  not 
to  be  underrated.  But  now  let  us  consider  the 
question  in  itself,  How  is  the  eight-hour  day  to  be 
brought  about?  Why,  the  thinking  workingman  must 
see  for  himself,  under  the  present  power  of  capital  in 
comparison  to  labor,  it  is  impossible  to  enforce  the  eight- 
hour  day  in  all  branches  of  business  otherwise  than  with 
armed  force.  With  empty  hands  the  workingmen  will 
hardly  be  able  to  cope  with  the  representatives  of  the 
club,  in  case  after  the  ist  of  May  of  this  year  there  should 
be  a  general  strike.  Then  the  bosses  will  simply  employ 
other  men,  so-called  'scabs;'  such  will  always  be  found. 

"  The  whole  movement  then  would  be  nothing  but  fill- 
ing the  places  with  new  men,  but  if  the  workingmen  are 
•prepared  to  eventually  stop  the  -working  of  the  factories  to 
defend  himself  with  the  aid  of  dynamite  and  bombs  against 
the  militia,  -which  will  of  course  be  employed,  then  and 
only  then  you  can  expect  a  thorough  success  of  the  eight-hour 
movement. 

"  Therefore,  -working' men,  I  call  upon  you,  arm  your- 
selves. R.  B." 

EXHIBIT  86. 

In  the  issue  of  January  23,  1886,  is  a  letter  signed 
August  Kiesling: 

"  The  rottenness  of  our  social  institutions  cannot  be 
covered  any  longer.  Too  open  lies  the  wound  with 
which  the  rotten  system  of  to-day  is  afflicted;  although 


41 

this  ulcer  is  very  old,  although  they  have  constantly 
doctored  it,  and  although  it  is  getting  worse  from  year  to 
year,  they  now  intend  to  put  new  plaster  on  it.  Brief  is 
the  space  of  time  until  the  eventful  day.  The  working- 
people  feel  that  something  must  be  done.  The  conditions 
force  them  to  wake  up  from  slumbetr.  '  Already  an  im- 
mense mass  is  without  means  of  subsistence.  They  are 
more  and  more  meager.  Capital  sucks  the  marrow  out 
of  the  bones  of  the  workingmen. 

"  But  why  do  we  complain?  Why  do  we  murmur? 
We  have  no  right  to.  Do  we  not  know  that  all  the 
misery,  all  the  want,  are  the  necessary  consequence  of  the 
present  state  of  society?  As  long  as  we  admit  that  we 
are  pariahs,  that  we  are  born  to  submit  our  neck  as 
slaves  under  the  whip  of  hunger,  of  extortioners;  as  long 
as  we  admit  that,  we  have  no  right  to  complain.  There- 
fore, associates  in  misery,  for  this  pressure  has  finally 
become  unbearable,  do  not  let  us  treat  peaceably  with 
oiir  deadly  enemies  on  the  ist  of  May.  We  do  not 
•want  to  cheat  ourselves  for  the  hundredth  lime  tliat 
we  would  get  from  tJiem  in  a  peaceable  and  har- 
monious way  even  the  least  for  the  betterment  of  our 
situation'  We  have  so  many  examples  and  experiences, 
that  even  the  large  and  indifferent  mass  does  not  believe 
any  more  that  an  agitation  which  tends  to  ameliorate  the 
condition  of  the  workingmen  in  a  harmonious  way 
would  be  of  any  purpose  to  those  people,  and  I  for  one 
think  they  are  right.  On  the  ist  of  May,  also,  we  will 
have  an  example  of  how  harmoniously  the  capitalists  will 
have  our  skulls  crushed  by  their  hirelings,  if,  out  of  sheer 
love  of  harmony,  we  will  stand  by  with  our  fists  in  our 
pockets.  He  who  employs  the  best  means  of  battle,  and 
uses  them,  is  the  victor.  Force  is  right  (by  BismarcK},  and 
if  once  we  have  seen  that,  on  account  oj  our  unanimity  and 
the  modern  means  of  warfare,  we  have  the  power,  then  we 
will  also  see  we  have  the  right;  and  that  it  is  a  great  stu- 
pidity to  work  for  that  rabble  of  parasites  instead  of  our- 
selves. 

"  Therefore,  comrades,  armed  to  the  teeth,  we  want  to 
demand  our  rights  on  the  ist  of  May;  in  the  other  case 
there  are  only  blows  of  the  club  for  you." 


42 

EXHIBIT  88. 

In  the  issue  of  February  17,  1886,  is  an  editorial: 

«  *  #  *  That  the  conflict  between  capitalism  and  work- 
ingmen  is  taking  constantly  a  sharper  form  is  to  be  hailed,  in- 
asmuch as  thereby  the  decision  will  be  (word  out).  //?///- 
dreds  and  thousands  of  reasons  indicate  that  force  ici/l 
bring  about  tiie  decisive  results  in  the  battle  for  liberty, 
and  the  more  consents  the  masses  are  in  that  conflict 
of  their  irresistible  power,  tJic  nearer  zuill  be  the  ap- 
proaching spring  tide  of  the  people" 

EXHIBIT  89. 

In  the  issue  of  April  20  is  an  editorial: 

"  As  long  as  the  people  in  the  kitchen  of  life  are  satis- 
fied with  the  smell  of  the  roast  and  feeds  his  empty 
stomach  with  the  idea  of  national  greatness,  national 
riches,  national  liberty  of  the  poll,  the  glutton  is  always 
for  liberty.  Why  not?  It  is  useless  to  others  and  he 
feels  comfortable  with  it.  Freedom  of  making  contracts, 
most  sacred  constitutional  right  of  mankind,  why  shouldst 
thou  not  be  welcome  to  gentlemanly  gluttons?  *  *  * 
It  is  true  that  hundreds  have  armed  themselves.  But  thou- 
sands are  still  unarmed.  Every  trades-union  should  make 
it  obligatory  to  every  member  to  keep  a  good  gun  at 
home  and  ammunition.  The  time  is  probably  not  very  far 
where  such  neglect  would  be  bitterly  felt,  and  the  gov- 
erning class  is  prepared,  and  their  demands  and  their  im- 
portunes is  backed  by  muskets  and  Galling  guns.  Work- 
in  gmen,  follow  this  example." 

EXHIBIT  114. 

March  2,  1886,  editorial  notices  : 

"  The  order-scoundrels  beamed  yesterday  morning  in- 
their  full  glory.  With  the  help  of  pickpockets,  the  natural 
allies  of  professional  cutthroats,  who  otherwise  call  them- 
selves also  detectives,  they  succeeded  yesterday  in  taking 
seventy  scabs  to  the  factory,  accompanied  also  by  scoun- 


43 

drels  of  the  secret  service  to  give  a  better  appearance. 
This  morning  the  number  of  the  scabs  which  went  back 
to  work  was  materially  increased.  At  this  opportunity  it 
was  once  again  seen  for  what  purpose  the  police  ex- 
isted— to  protect  the  workingman  if  he  works  for  star- 
vation wages  and  is  an  obedient  serf,  to  club  him  down 
when  he  rebels  against  the  capitalistic  herd  of  robbers. 
Force  only  gives  way  to  force.  Who  -wants  to  attack 
capitalism  in  earnest  must  overthrow  Ike  body-guards  of 
it,  the  well-drilled  and  well-armed  '  men  of  order  J  and  kill 
them,  if  he  does  not  want  to  be  murdered  himself.  But, 
for  this  is  needed  an  armed  and  systematically  drilled 
organization" 

On  the  same  page:     "  The  time  up  to  the  ist  of  Mav 
"  is  short.     Look  out!" 


EXHIBIT  96. 

In  the  issue  of  March  19,  1886,  is  a  communication  de- 
nouncing the  eight-hour  movement  as  of  no  advantage  to 
the  workingmen,  and  saying: 

"  The  only  aim  of  the  workingmen  should  be  the  libera- 
tion of  mankind  from  the  shackles  of  the  existing  damnable 
slavery.  Here  in  America,  where  the  workingman  pos- 
sesses yet  the  freedom  of  meeting,  of  speech,  and  of  the 
press,  most  should  be  done  for  the  emancipation  of  suffer- 
ing mankind.  But  the  press  gang  and  the  teachers  in 
the  schools  do  all  in  their  power  to  keep  the  people  in  the 
dark.  Thus  everything  tends  to  degrade  mankind  more 
and  more  from  day  to  day,  and  this  effects  a  '  beastening,' 
as  is  observable  with  Irishmen,  and  more  apparent  even 
with  the  Chinese. 

"  If  we  do  not  soon  bestir  ourselves  for  a  bloody  revolu- 
tion we  cannot  leave  anything  to  our  children  but  poverty 
and  slavery.  Therefore  prepare  yonrselves  in  all  quiet- 
ness for  the  revolution" 


44 
EXHIBIT  90. 

In  the  issue  of  April  21,  1886,  appears  an  editorial,  as 
follows: 

"  The  love  for  law  on  the  part  of  the  workingman  is 
not  so  well  established  if  -put  to  the  test.  But  the  hypocrit- 
ical peace  assurances  in  quiet  times  are  in  the  way  of 
preparations  for  serious  conflict.  When  it  comes  to  se- 
rious occasions  it  unfortunately  happens  that  very  often 
the  workingmen  break  their  heads  on  the  walls  of  the 
law.  The  desire  to  ignore  the  law  is  there,  but  it  remains  a 
desire.  Possible  action  means  to  remain  unorganized  and 
t©  stand  anything  that  the  extortioner  may  see  fit  to  do. 

"  He  who  submits  to  the  present  order  of  things  has 
no  right  to  compla  in  about  capitalistic  extortion,  for 
order  means  sustaining'  that.  And  he  who  revolts 
against  the  institutions  vouchsafed  by  the  constitution 
and  the  laws  is  a  rebel  and  has  no  right  to  complain  if 
he  is  met  by  soldiers.  Every  class  defends  itself  as  well 
as  it  can.  A  rebel  who  puts  himself  opposite  the  mouth 
of  the  cannons  of  his  enemies  with  empty  fists  is  a 
fooir 

EXHIBIT  93. 

In  the    issue  of  April  3Oth  is   an  editorial: 

"  As  we  are  informed  from  reliable  sourcer  the  police 
have  received  secret  orders  to  keep  themselves  prepared 
in  their  stations,  as  a  labor  conflict  is  feared  on  Saturday 
of  next  week.  You  see  the  capitalistic  sluggards  are 
thirsty  for  the  blood  of  workingmen.  The  workingmen 
will  not  permit  themselves  to  be  kicked  by  them  like  dogs 
any  more.  They  will  not  be  tortured  to-  death  any  more 
by  unlimited  work,  and  they  will  not  be  starved  any  more. 
For  this  opposition  they  want  vengeance  and  they  cry  for 
blood.  May  be  that  this  cry  will  be  heeded — but  then, 
beside  the  red  life-sap  of  the  extortioner's  victim,  there 
may  flow  a  little  of  the  black-dragon  poison  of  the  extor- 
tioner. To  the  work  in<r men  we  again  say  at  this 
hour  arm  yourselves.  You  have  but  one  life  to  lose. 
Defend  that  ivith  all  means.  A  nd  in  this  conned  ion  a  r 
want  to  caution  the  armed  workingmen  as  yet  to  con- 


45 

ceal  their  arms  so  that  they  will  not  be  stolen  by  the 
minions  of  the  law,  as  it  has  happened  in  various  in- 
stances" 

From  these  quotations,  taken  from  various  numbers  of 
the  files  of  these  two  papers,  it  is  apparent  that  those 
papers  were  continually  agitating,  from  day  to  day,  the 
bringing  about  of  a  social  revolution  by  force;  that  they 
were  continually  declaring  that  society  in  America  was 
divided  into  two  classes,  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  pro- 
letariat; that  the  workingmen  were  held  in  a  condition 
of  abject  bondage  to  the  capitalists  or  the  bourgeoisie; 
that  they  had  no  hope  of  amelioration  by  peaceable 
means;  that  the  ballot  was  a  delusion;  that  any  plan  for 

• 

the  amelioration  of  their  condition  by  lessening  the  hours 
of  labor  was  delusive;  that  their  only  hope  lay  in  a  com- 
plete and  bloody  revolution  which  should  entirely  destroy 
the  existing  order  of  society  and  wipe  out  "  the  infernal 
right  of  property";  that  in  bringing  about  this  revolution 
they  should  act  wholly  without  conscience  and  utterly 
without  heart;  that  they  should  be  consumed  by  a  single 
passion — the  revolution;  that  they  should  be  at  war  with 
the  whole  civilized  world;  that  they  should  live  in  it 
merely  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  it;  that  they  should 
know  but  one  science,  the  science  of  destruction;  that 
the}'  should  live  for  that  and  for  that  alone;  that  they 
should  despise  public  sentiment  and  all  morality;  that 
they  should  extend  mercy  to  no  one  who  stood  in  the 
way  of  their  purpose,  and  should  expect  none  for  them- 
selves; that  a  war  of  life  and  death  reignea  between 
them  and  society;  that  the  police  and  the  government  of 
the  country  were  the  allies  of  the  capitalists,  and  hence 
their  enemies,  and  that  it  was  necessary,  in  order  to  suc- 
cess, that  the  police,  the  militia  and  the  government  itself 
should  be  annihilated. 


46 

The  Arbeiter  Zeitung  was  under  the  control  of  Spies 
-as  managing  editor.  Leading  editorials  were  written  by 
him.  The  minor  editorials,  editorial  notes  and  some  of 
the  leading  editorials,  as  appears  from  his  own  evidence, 
were  written  by  Schwab.  The  Alarm  was  under  the  ed- 
itorial control  of  Parsons.  Many  of  the  editorials  were 
written  by  him.  Some  of  them  appeared  over  his  own 
signature.  Whatever  appeared,  whether  by  way  of  com- 
munication or  by  copy  from  other  papers  or  documents, 
or  in  original  editorial  matter,  was  under  the  direct  con- 
trol of  these  defendants,  And  thus  it  appears  that  so  far 
as  Spies,  Schwab  and  Parsons  were  concerned,  the 
declarations  of  these  papers  were  their  declarations,  their 
acts,  their  advocacy  of  the  change  in  the  social  order  and 
of  the  bringing  about  of  that  change  by  force.  More- 
•over,  these  two  papers  were  the  recognized  organs  of  the 
International;  they  spoke  for  it;  their  contents  show  that 
they  were  continually  advocating  the  very  doctrines  an- 
nounced and  published  by  them  as  the  official  platform  of 
the  International  in  America,  and  the  purpose,  according 
to  this  platform  of  the  Internationa],  was  "the  destruction 
"  of  the  right  of  property,  and  complete  change  in  the 
"  order  of  society,"  and  they  proposed  to  accomplish  that 
by  "agitation  with  a  view  to  organization,  organization 
'•'•for  the -purpose  of  rebellion.'1'1  Herein  is  indicated  in  a 
few  words  the  way  which  workingrnen  must  take  if  they 
would  rid  themselves  of  their  chains.  The  first  section  of 
their  platform  being,  "  destruction  of  the  existing  class- 
"  domination  by  all  means,  /'.  e.,  through  energetic,  in- 
"  exorable,  revolutionary  and  International  activity."  This 
object  was  treasonable.  Their  conspiracy,  the  moment  it 
resulted  in  an  overt  act,  was  treason,  and  every  member 
of  it  guilty  of  treason. 


47 

Moreover,  not  only  did  those  defendants  named  advo- 
cate these  doctrines  through  the  columns  of  their  papers, 
but  they,  together  with  others  of  the  defendants,  were 
continually  advocating  the  .same  doctrines  and  the  same 
methods  orally,  in  public  and  in  private,  openly  upon  the 
streets  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  throughout  the  coun- 
try, privately  and  in  the  secrecy  of  their  own  meetings. 
This  appears  from  the  testimony  of  a  large  number  of 
witnesses,  to  which  attention  is  now  called,  and  also  from 
accounts  appearing  from  time  to  time  in  these  papers,  of 
meetings  in  the  interests  of  the  Internationals,  which  were 
held  from  time  to  time,  some  of  which  we  have  cited. 


(4.)  SPEECHES  OF  THE  DEFENDANTS. 

CLARENCE  P.  DRESSER,  a  newspaper  reporter,  testi- 
fied (Vol.  J,  214)  that  he  had  attended  probably  a 
dozen  meetings  on  Sunday  afternoons,  at  the  lake 
front,  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  where  Fielden,  Parsons 
and  Spies  were  present,  and  at  which  they  and  iMrs. 
Parsons  made  speeches;  that  he  had  heard  Spies 
in  these  speeches  advocate  the  principle  that  property 
was  a  crime,  and  say  that  he  would  like  to  head  a 
crowd  and  carry  the  black  flag  down  Michigan  avenue, 
and  had  seen  Fielden,  when  he  was  addressing  a 
crowd,  point  to  the  carriages  on  Michigan  avenue  and  say, 
"  Those  are  the  people  that  ive  want  to  blow — and  he  did 
not  say  to  eternity ; "  that  he  had  heard  Fielden  say  that  they 
ought  to  blow  all  of  those  people  to  hell,  and  also  that  he 
would  be  glad  to  march  down  Michigan  avenue  and  carry 
terror  to  the  hearts  oj  George  Pullman  and  Marshall 
Field  and  such  men,  calling  them  by  name,  and  that  suck 
men  as  Pullman,  Field,  Doane  and  others  deserved  to  be 


48 

killed^  and  asked  who  would  be  -willing  to  follow  him, 
whereupon  a  great  many  called  out  "  We  will"  and  he, 
Fielden,  said  that  they  would  be  ready  with  weapons  and  be 
•properly  equipped  to  take  such  an  excursion.  The  witness 
had  heard  Parsons  say  that  the  workingnien  must  rouse 
up  and  arm  themselves  and  meet  their  oppressors,  as  he 
termed  them,  with  weapons — meet  them  face  to  face,  and 
consider  that  they  were  to  be  treated  in  the  same  manner, 
and  especially  denounced  the  militia  and  the  police,  and  that 
they  should  arm  themselves  with  guns,  pistols,  dynamite 
and  anything"  they  could  obtain;  that  on  the  night  of  the 
board  of  trade  demonstration  he  heard  Spies  say  it  was 
the  intention  to  blow  up  the  board  of  trade  building, 
(Vol.  J,  219.) 

MARSHALL  H.  WILLIAMSON,  a  newspaper  reporter, 
testified  (Vol.  J,  page  i)  that  he  heard  Parsons  and 
Fielden  speak  on  the  night  of  the  board  of  trade  demon- 
stration; that  Parsons  called  the  police  blood-hounds  and 
servants  of  the  robbing  capitalists,  and  called  upon  the 
mob  to  follow  him  in  an  assault  upon  Marshall  Field's  dry 
goods  house  and  various  clothing  houses  and  take  from 
there  what  he  called  the  necessities  of  life  which  the 
audience  was  in  need  of.  He  was  speaking  from  the 
second  floor  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  building;  there  were 
about  a  thousand  people  in  the  audience;  that  Fielden,  in 
his  speech  on  the  same  occasion,  called  upon  the  mob  and 
he  agreed  to  lead  them  to  rob  those  places,  or  to  go  into 
them  and  take  from  them  what  they  needed  in  the  way 
•of  clothing  and  dry  goods;  that  both  the  speakers  said 
that  the  new  board  of  trade  building  was  built  out  of 
monev  of  which  they  had  been  robbed,  and  that  all  of  the 
men  who  transacted  business  there  were  robbers  and 
thieves  and  ought  to  be  killed;  that  after  the  speaking  on 


49 

that  night,  in  the  front  room  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung 
building  he  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Parsons.  "  I 
"  asked  him  why  they  didn't  march  upon  the  board  of  trade 
"  and  blow  it  up;  he  said  because  the  police  had  interfered, 
"  and  they  did  not  expect  the  police  to  interfere  and  -were 
"  not  prepared,  and  I  says,  '  Well,  your  party  was  armed ; 
"  why  didn't  you  go  right  through  the  police?'  He  said, 
"  '  We  were  not  prepared  to  meet  them  as  we  wanted 
"  to?  I  told  him  that  I  had  seen  revolvers  exhibited  by 
"  some  in  the  procession,  and  asked  what  further  prepara- 
"  tion  he  wanted ;  he  told  me  when  they  met  the  police  that 
"  they  would  be  prepared  with  bombs  and  dynamite. 
*'  Fielden  was  standing  at  Parsons'  elbow  at  the  time  and 
"  said,  '•The  next  time  the  police  attempted  to  interfere  with 
"  them  they  would  be  prepared  for  them.  I  asked  him 
"  when  that  time  would  be,  and  he  said  he  '  didn't  know, 
"  perhaps  in  the  course  of  a  year  or  so.' ':  That  during 
the  winter  months  of  1884  he  had  heard  both  Parsons 
and  Fielden  make  addresses  to  socialistic  organizations  in 
the  hall  at  54  West  Lake  street;  that  on  one  occasion 
Fielden  wanted  them  to  follow  him  to  those  clothing 
stores  and  grocery  stores  and  other  places  and  get  what 
they  needed  to  live  on,  what  they  needed  to  support  their 
families  with  and  feed  their  babies  with,  and  told  them  to 
purchase  dynamite;  he  said  that  Jive  cents'  worth  of 
dynamite  carried  around  in  the  vest  pocket  would  do 
more  good  than  all  the  revolvers  and  rifles  in  the  world; 
that  Parsons  told  the  audience  that  they  were  being 
robbed,  and  offered  to  lead  them  to  the  grocery  stores 
and  various  other  places  to  get  what  they  wanted. 

LAWRENCE  HARDY,  a  newspaper  reporter,  testified 
(Vol.  J,  356)  that  at  a  meeting  of  McCormick's  ex-em- 
ployes on  the  night  of  the  I2th  of  March  of  this  year 


(i886),  at  Zepf's  Hall,  he  heard  Fielden  say  that  the 
time  had  come  for  workingmen  to  assert  themselves.  He 
said :  "  We  are  told  that  ive  must  attain  our  ends  and  aims 
"  by  obeying  law  and  order.  Damn  lazu  and  order  f 
"  We  have  obeyed  lazu  and  order  long-  enough.  T7ie  time 
"  has  come  for  you,  men,  to  strangle  the  lazu,  or  the  lazu 
"•  zuill  strangle  you.  What  you  should  do  is  to  organize  and 
"  march  up  the  Black  road  and  take  possession  of  McCor- 
"  wick's  factory;  it  belongs  to  you;  it  does  not  belong  to 
"  him.  Ton  made  it;  he  did  not"  That  he  continued  in 
that  strain  for  some  little  time.  At  the  same  meeting, 
Parsons,  to  zuhose  speaking  opposition  was  made,  finally  ob- 
tained the  platform  and  said  that  the  capitalists  had 
ground  the  workingmen  under  their  heels  and  robbed  them 
for  years ;  he  thought  the  time  had  come  for  them  to  assert 
their  rights,  to  get  them  if  they  could,  even  by  force,  if 
necessary;  he  referred  to  the  McCormick  strike  in  par- 
ticular, saying  that  McCormick  himself  was  not  the  real 
owner  of  the  property;  it  belonged  to  the  workingmen 
who  had  created  it;  that  a  previous  strike  had  failed  be- 
cause of  the  intercession  (interference)  of  the  police,  who 
had  driven  the  men  away,  and  advised  them  to  arm  them- 
selves, and  get  their  rights  by  force. 

WILLIAM  H.  FREEMAN,  a  newspaper  reporter,  testified 
(Vol.  K,  37),  that  he  heard  Parsons  in  a  speech  at  the 
board  of  trade  demonstration  say  that  if  the  workingmen 
were  driven  to  starvation  they  would  unfurl  the  banner 
of  liberty  and  equality  and  sweep  everything  before  them^ 
he  said  that  dramatically,  turning  and  shaking  his  finger 
at  a  red  banner  that  was  hanging  on  the  platform,  and 
urged  the  zvorkingmen  there  to  take  up  arms,  and  by  that 
means  right  the  zurongs  "which  they  zuere  at  that  time  un- 
dergoing; at  the  same  meeting  Fielden  said  that  all  agr 


Si    . 

gregation  of  property  and  all  accumulation  of  property 
by  individuals  was  wrong  and  against  the  best  interests 
of  the  workingmen;  that  the  workingman  had  a  direct 
interest  in  everything  that  was  produced,  and  that  they 
could  only  be  enabled  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  their  labor  and 
what  belonged  to  them  by  the  use  of  force. 

MAXWELL  E.  DICKSON,  a  newspaper  reporter,  testified 
(Vol.  K,  93)  that  he  met  Parsons  last  November 
(/^j),  and  remarked  to  him  in  a  sort  of  joking  way, 
"You  are  not  going  to  blow  up  anybody,  are  you?" 
Parsons  said,  "  You  will  see."  I  said,  "  You  don  t 
"  mean  you  are  going  to  use  dynamite?"  He  said, 
"  /  don  t  say  that  we  zvori t;  I  don  t  knoiv  that  we 
"  wont,  but  you  will  see  the  revolution  brought  about 
"  sooner  than  you  think  for"  That  they  had  several 
conversations  of  that  kind.  The  witness  attended  social- 
istic meetings  since  1875.  At  a  meeting  at  West  I2th 
street  Turner  Hall,  called  for  the  purpose  of  discussing 
socialism,  Parsons  "  made  a  speech  in  which  he  said  that 
"  the  editors  of  the  capitalistic  press,  clergymen,  lawyers, 
"  publicists  and  capitalists  had  been  invited  to  discuss  the 
"  questions  there,  and  during  his  remarks  he  said  that  the 
u  degradation  of  labor  was  brought  about  by  what  was 
"  known  as  the  rights  of  private  property,  and  he  there 
"  quoted  some  statistics,  a  long  line  of  them,  in  which  he 
"  showed  that  an  average  man  with  a  capital  of  $5,000 
*'  was  enabled  to  make  $4,000  a  year,  and  thus  get  rich, 
*'  while  his  employe  who  made  money  for  him  obtained 
"  but  $304,  and  there  was  upwards  of  2,000,000  heads  of 
•"  families  who  were  in  want,  or  who  were  bordering  on 
"  want,  and  who  were  making  their  living  either  by  theft, 
*'  robbery  or  any  such  occupation  as  they  could  get  work 
•"  in.  And  he  said  that,  while  they  were  the  champions 


52 

"  of  free  speech  and  social  order,  it  would  be  hard  for  the 
"  man  who  stood  in  the  way  of  liberty,  fraternity  and 
"  equality  to  all."  Fielden  at  the  same  place  made  a 
speech  in  which  he  said,  "  The  majority  of  men  were 
"  starving  because  of  over-production,  and  the  cause  of 
"  that  over  production  he  figured  out,  showed  that  that 
"  ought  not  to  be,  and  then  went  on  to  show  that  overr 
"  coats  were  being  sent  to  Africa,  to  the  Congo  States, 
"  to  cover  the  nakedness  there,  that  were  needed  at  home 
"  here,  and  he  could  not  understand  how  that  was.  As  a 
"  socialist  he  said  that  they  believed  in  the  equal  right  of 
"•  every  man  to  live,  but  that  the  present  condition  of  the 
"  laboring  man  was  due  to  the  domination  of  capital,  and 
**  they  could  expect  no  remedy  from  the  legislature  or 
"  from  legislators,  and  that  there  were  enough  present  in 
"  the  hall  at  that  time  to  take  Chicago  from  the  grasp  of 
"  the  capitalists."  Further  he  said,  "  That  the  time  was 
"  coming  when  a  contest  would  arise  between  capit.al  and 
"  labor,  and  socialists  should  be  prepared  for  the  result; 
"  he  was  no  alarmist,  but  the  contest  would  certainly 
"  come,  and  the  socialists  would  be  prepared  for  the  vic- 
"  tory  when  it  did  come." 

The  witness  was  present  at  a  meeting  at  Mueller's  Hall, 
at  which  Fielden  presided,  when  a  man  named  Griffin 
made  a  speech  advocating  the  use  of  force  to  right  social 
wrongs,  and  there  was  a  man  named  Lichtner  who  advo- 
cated the  socialistic  idea,  but  opposed  the  use  of  force., 
whereupon  Schwab,  one  of  the  defendants,  said  that 
the  gap  between  the  rich  and  poor  was  growing  wider  \ 
that  although-  despotism  in  Russia  had  endeavored  to  crush 
nihilism  by  executing  some  and  sending  others  to  Siberia 
nihilism  was  still  growing,  and  he  praised  Reinsdorff,  who- 
had  then  been  recently  executed  in  Europe,  but  stated  that 


53 

his  death  had  been  avenged  by  the  killing  of  Rumpf,  the 
chief  of  police  of  Frankfort,  who  had  been  industrious 
in  endeavoring  to  crush  out  socialism;  that  murder  was 
forced  on  many  a  man  through  the  misery  brought  or* 
him  by  capital;  that  such  a  thing  as  freedom  in  the  United 
States  was  a  farce,  or  something  to  that  effect,  and  that 
freedom  in  Illinois  was  literally  unknown',  that  both  of  the 
political  parties  were  corrupt,  and  what  was  needed  here 
was  a  bloody  revolution  which  would  right  their  wrongs. 

At  the  same  meeting  Spies  made  a  speech  in  which  he 
advised  the  workingmen  to  revolt  at  once,  and  said  that  he 
had  been  accused  of  giving  this  advice  before,  and  that  it 
was  true,  and  that  he  was  proud  of  it;  that  wage-slavery 
could  only  be  abolished  through  powder  and  ball.  He  de- 
nounced the  ballot  as  a  sort  of  "  skin  "  game.  He  com- 
pared it  to  a  deck  of  cards,  in  which  there  was  a  marked 
deck  put  in  the  place  of  the  genuine,  and  in  which  the 
poor  man  got  all  of  the  skin  cards,  so  that  when  the  dealer 
laid  down  his  card  his  money  was  taken  from  him. 

Parsons  then  offered  the  following  resolution: 

"  WHEREAS,  Our  comrades  in  Germany  have  slain  one 
of  the  dirtiest  dogs  of  his  majesty  Lehmann,  the  greatest 
disgrace  of  the  present  time,  namely,  the  spy  Rumpf. 
resolved,  that  we  rejoice  over  and  applaud  the  noble  and 
heroic  act." 

Parsons  offered  resolutions  advocating  the  abolition  of 
the  present  social  system  and  favoring  a  new  social  co- 
operative system  that  would  bring  abotit  equality  between 
capital  and  labor. 

The  witness  was  present  at  a  meeting  held  or* 
Thanksgiving  day  at  the  Market  square,  where 
Fielden  said  that  they  (the  working  people)  would  be 
justified  in  going  over  to  Marshall  Field's,  over  the  wayr 
and  taking  from  there  that  which  belonged  to  them. 


54 

JOHN].  RYAN,  a  retired  army  officer,  testified  (Vol.  J, 
131),  that  he  had  attended  meetings  held  on  the  lake 
front  in  the  city,  at  one  of  which  he  heard  Parsons  make 
a  speech.  "  He  was  speaking  in  a  general  way  about 
"  trouble  with  the  workingmen  and  the  people,  what  he 
"  called  the  proletariat  class,  and  spoke  about  their  enemies, 
"  as  he  termed  them,  the  police  and  the  constituted  author- 
"  ities;  he  said  that  they  were  their  enemies  and  that  they 
"  would  use  force  against  them;  the  authorities  would  use 
"  the -police  and  the  militia,  and  they  would  have  to  use  force 
"  against  them;  he  advised  them  to  purchase  rijles;  if  they 
"  hadrft  money  enough  to  buy  rijles  to  buy  pistols,  and  if 
"  they  couldrft  buy  pistols,  they  could  buy  sufficient  dynamite 
'•'•for  twenty-five  cents  to  blow  up  a  building  the  size  of  the 
"  Pullman  building,  and  pointed  to  it" 

He  heard  Fielden  speak  to  the  same  effect  at  that  meet- 
ing. He  also  heard  Spies  at  meetings  at  the  same  place 
at  different  times  say  the  oppressed  class,  the  working- 
men  and  the  workers,  are  opposed  to  the  capitalists  and 
the  property-holders;  that  a  property-holder  or  a  capi- 
talist was  the  enemy  of  the  workingmen;  if  they  could  not 
get  their  rights  in  a  peaceable  manner  they  must  get  them 
in  a  forcible  way. 

The  witness  boarded  at  the  Clifton  House  (near  the 
lake  front)  and  went  to  these  meetings  Sunday  afternoons 
often,  listening  to  the  speeches.  "  After  the  picnic  Mr. 
-"  Parsons — /  worft  be  sure  of  that— spoke  about  a  young 
"  German  experimenting  with  dynamite  at  this  picnic.  He 
"  had  dynamite  in  a  can,  a  tomato  can,  and  spoke 
"  of  how  the  thing  was  thrown  into  a  pond,  or 
"  lake,  and  how  much  execution  could  be  done  with 
"  that  amount  of  dynamite"  He  also  spoke  of  what 
<could  be  done  with  it  in  destroying  buildings  and  property 


55 

in  the  city.  The  witness  said  that  the  same  sentiments 
were  repeated  by  the  speakers  at  every  meeting;  these 
meetings  were  held  on  the  lake  front  (a  park  in  the  cen- 
ter of  the  city,  on  the  lake  front)  nearly  every  Sunday,, 
and  the  attendance  was  about  150. 

THOMAS  L.  TREHORN,  a  police  officer,  (Vol.  J,  230}  was- 
present  on  the  night  of  the  board  of  trade  meeting  and  heard 
the  speech  which  Parsons  made.  Parsons  characterized 
the  board  of  trade  as  a  robbers'  roost  and  den;  that  they 
were  all  reveling  in  the  proceeds  of  the  workingman; 
that  every  dollar  that  was  put  in  that  building  belonged 
to  the  workingman.  He  says:  "  How  many  of  my 
"  hearers  could  afford  to  give  twenty  dollars  for  a  supper 
"  to-night?  The  invitations  are  twenty  dollars,  I  believe." 

He  says:  "It  is  no  use  of  arguing;  -we  will  never  gain 
'•'•anything  by  argument  and  words ..  The  only  way  to 
"  convince  those  capitalists  and  robbers  is  to  use  the  gun  and 
"  dynamite;''''  and  his  speech  went  on  in  that  manner. 

JAMES  G.  MILLER,  a  lawyer,  testified  (Vol.  J,  292) 
that  last  fall  he  heard  Fielden  addressing  a  crowd  on  the 
lake  front,  in  which  he  stated  "  that  the  working-men,  the 
"  laborers,  were  justified  in  using  force  to  obtain  that 
"  which  was  theirs,  and  ^vhich  was  withheld  from  them  by 
"  the  rich;  that  our  present  social  system  was  not  proper;. 
"  that  an  equality  of  possession  should  exist,  and  if  the 
"  rich  kept  on  withholding  from  the  poor  what  was  justly 
"  due  to  the  poor  because  they  had  earned  it,  they  should 
"  use  force  and  violence;  that  force  should  be  used  against 
"  the  rich,  the  zveallhy  and  the  men  who  had  means;  that 
"  the  existing  order  of  society  should  be  destroyed — annihi- 
"  lated — and  as  no  other  redress  could  be  had  peaceably  they 
"  were  justified  in  using  force  and  violence;  that  at  that 


56 

"  time  there  were  from  two  to  three  hundred  present  in 
"  the  crowd." 

HENRY  WEINECKE,  a  police  officer,  testified  (Vol.  J, 
85)  that  some  time  in  February,  1886,  before  he  came 
on  the  police  force,  he  heard  the  defendant  Engel  at 
Timmerhoff's  hall,  703  Milwaukee  avenue,  address  a 
meeting.  The  witness  said:  "I  was  standing  in  the 
"  door,  the  door  that  goes  in  the  hall  from  the  saloon.  I 
"  heard  him  talking  about  buying  revolvers  for  the  -police. 
"  He  advised  everybody — '  every  man  wants  to  join  them,  to 
"  save  np  three  or  four  dollars  to  bny  revolvers  to  shoot 
"  every  policeman  down  ';  he  says  he  wants  every  working- 
"  man  whom  he  could  get  to  join  them,  and  then  advise 
"  everybody  you  know — you  save  up  three  or  four  dollars 
"  to  buy  a  revolver  that  was  good  enough  for  shooting 
"  policemen  down,  he  said."  The  witness  further  stated 
that  the  hall  at  that  meeting  was  crowded,  and  Engel 
spoke  in  German. 

ANDREW  C.  JOHNSON,  a  detective  of  Pinkerton's  Na- 
tional Agency,  testified  (Vol.  J,  385)  that  he  knew 
Parsons,  Fielden,  Spies,  Schwab  and  Neebe;  that  in  the 
course  of  his  employment  as  a  detective  of  that  agency 
he  joined  the  American  Group  of  the  International  Work- 
ingmen's  Association;  the  first  meeting  which  he  attended 
was  on  the  22d  of  February,  1885;  the  last  meeting  on 
the  24th  of  January,  1886;  that  he  made  a  report  in  writ- 
ing of  the  meetings  which  he  attended,  as  the  meetings 
were  held,  which  he  returned  to  the  agency.  The  wit- 
ness attended  a  meeting  on  the  22d  of  February,  1885, 
at  Baum's  Pavilion,  Cottage  Grove  avenue  and  22d 
street,  in  Chicago,  at  which  Parsons  made  a  speech, 
saying  the  reason  the  meeting  had  been  called  in  that  lo- 


57 

cality  was  so  as  to  give  them,  the  many  merchant  princes 
who  resided  there,  an  opportunity  to  attend  and  hear 
what  the  communists  had  to  say  about  the  distribution  of 
wealth.  He  said,  "  /  want  you  all  to  unite  together  and 
throw  off  the  yoke;  we  need  no  -president ,  no  congressmen , 
no  police,  no  militia  and  no  judges;  they  are  all  leeches, 
sucking  the  blood  of  the  poor,  who  have  to  support  them 
all  by  their  labor.  /  say  to  you-,  rise,  one  and  all,  and  let 
us  exterminate  them  all.  Woe  to  the  -police  or  the  militia 
whom  they  send  against  us!" 

On  the  ist  of  March,  1885,  the  witness  joined  the  asso- 
ciation at  a  meeting  at  Greif  's  Hall,  54  and  56  West  Lake 
street.  He  says,  "I  went  to  the  defendant,  Fielden,  who 
"  was  at  that  time  acting  as  treasurer  and  secretary  for  the 
"association;  I  gave  him  my  name  and  signified  my  will- 
ingness to  join  the  association;  he  entered  my  name  in  a 
"book  and  handed  me  a  red  card  with  my  name  on  and  a 
"  number.  At  another  meeting  held  at  54  West  Lake 
"  street,  Parsons  stated,  '  We  are  sorely  in  need  of  funds 
"  wherewith  to  publish  the  Alarm,  and  1  think  as  many  of 
"  yon  who  are  able  ought  to  give  as  much  as  you  can,  as  our 
'•'-paper  is  a  most  powerful  weapon,  and  it  is  only  through 
"  the  paper  that  we  can  hope  to  reach  the  masses.''  At  a 
"meeting  of  the  American  group  held  at  Greif 's  Hall  in 
"this  city  on  the  22d  of  March  (1885),  a  man  (page  394) 
<c  named  Bishop  introduced  a  resolution  of  sympathy  for  a 
"girl  named  Sorrel.  The  girl  in  question,  Bishop  stated, 
"had  been  assaulted  by  a  master;  the  girl  had  applied  for 
"a  warrant,  which  had  been  refused  her  on  account  of  the 
"  high  social  standing  of  her  master.  Spies  said,  '  What  is 
"  the  use  of  passing  resolutions?  We  want  to  revenge  the 
"  girl.  Now  there  is  an  opportunity  for  some  of  our  young 
"  men  to  go  and  shoot  Wight.' ': 


58 

At -a  meeting  at  the  same  place  on  the  2pth  of  March, 
Fielden  said  that  a  few  explosions  in  the  city  of  Chicago 
-would  help  the  cause  considerably.  "•  There  is  the  new 
"  board  of  trade,  a  roost  of  thieves  and  robbers.  We 
"  oiight  to  commence  by  blowing-  that  up" 

At  another  meeting  at  the  same  place  (page  399), 
Fielden  said:  "  It  is  a  blessing  that  something'  has  been 
"  discovered  -wherewith  the  workingman  can  fight  the  police 
"  and  the  militia  with  the  Galling  guns" 

At  a  meeting  on  April  22d,  Parsons  said,  in  referring  to 
the  opening  of  the  new  board  of  trade  building,  "  What 
**  a  splendid  opportunity  there  will  be  next  Tuesday  night 
"•  for  some  bold  fellow  to  make  the  capitalists  tremble,  by 
"  blowing  up  the  building  and  all  the  thieves  and  robbers 
"  there."  At  the  conclusion  of  the  speech,  he  stated  that 
the  workingmen  of  Chicago  would  form  in  procession  on 
Market  square  on  Tuesday  evening  next,  and  he  invited 
all  those  present  to  get  as  many  of  the  friends  as  they 
could  to  join  the  procession. 

At  the  same  meeting,  Fielden  said:  "I  also  wish  to- 
"  invite  as  many  of  you  as  can  come,  and  as  many  as 
"  you  can  get;  go  to  the  lodging-houses  and  get  as 
"  many  of  the  tramps  as  you  can  find,  and  get  them  ta 
"  come  along  and  join  in  the  procession;  the  more  the 
"  merrier." 

At  the  next  meeting,  on  the  26th  of  April,  1885,  Par- 
sons said:  "  I  wish  you  all  to  consider  the  misery  of  the 
"  working  classes,  and  the  cause  of  all  the  misery  in  these 
"  institutions  termed  government;  I  lived  on  snow-balls 
"  all  last  winter,  but,  by  God,  I  will  not  do  it  this 
"  winter." 

At  a  meeting  held  at  Ogden's  Grove,  June  7,  1885, 
Fielden  said :  "  1  want  all  to  organize;  every  workingman 


59 

"  in  Chicago  ought  to  belong  to  our  organization;  it  is  of 
"  no  use  to  go  and  beg  of  our  masters  to  give  us  more 
"  -wages  or  better  times.  When  1  say  organize,  I 
"  mean  for  von  to  use  force',  it  is  of  no  use 
'•'•for  the  working  people  to  hope  to  gain  anything  by 
"  means  of  the  ordinary  weapons;  every  one  of  you  must 
"  learn  the  use  of  dynamite,  for  that  is  the  power  with 
"  which  we  hope  to  gain  our  rights" 

At  a  meeting  at  Greif's  Hall,  August  19,  1885,  Parsons 
(page  404),  referring  to  the  late  strike  of  the  street-car 
employes,  said:  "If  but  one  shot  had  been  fired,  and  Bon- 
"  field  had  happened  to  be  shot,  the  whole  city  would  have 
"  been  deluged  in  blood,  and  the  social  revolution  would 
u  have  been  inaugurated" 

At  a  meeting  of  the  same  group  on  the  2d  of  Septem- 
ber, 1885,  Fielden,  in  a  speech,  said:  "  It  is  useless  for 
"  you  to  suppose  that  you  can  ever  obtain  anything  in 
"  any  other  way  than  by  force.  You  must  arm  your- 
"  selves  and  prepare  for  the  coming  revolution." 

At  a  public  meeting,  held  in  I2th  street  Turner  Hall 
October  n,  1885,  Fielden  said:  "  The  eight-hour  law 
"  will  be  of  no  benefit  to  the  workingman;  you  must  all 
"  organize  and  use  force;  you  must  crush  out  the  present 
"government,  as  by  force  is  the  only  way  in  which  you 
"  better  your  present  condition" 

On  the  2Oth  of  December,  at  the  same  place,  Fielden 
said:  *'  All  the  crowned  heads  of  Europe  are  trembling  at 
"  the  very  name  of  socialism,  and  I  hope  soon  to  see  a  few 
"  Liskas  {the  man  who  murdered  the  chief  of  police  of 
"  Frankfort  and  was  hanged  for  it}  in  the  United  States 
"  to  put  out  of  the  way  a  few  of  the  tools  of  capital" 

At  a  meeting  at  106  Randolph  street  on  December  3Oth, 
Fielden  was  asked:  "  Would  the  destruction  of  private 


6o 

"  property  insure  universal  co-operation?"  and  replied: 
"  I  or  nobody  else  can  tell  what  is  going  to  happen  a  hun- 
"  dred  years  from  now,  but  this  everybody  knows:  if  pri- 
"  vate  property  was  done  away  with  it  would  insure  a 
"  better  state  of  things  generally,  and  we  will  try  all  we 
"  can  to  teach  the  people  the  best  way  in  which  to  bring 
"  about  this  change." 

At  a  meeting  at  the  same  place,  January  T4th,  Spies 
said  to  Fielden,  privately:  "  Don't  say  very  much  about 
"  that  article  in  the  Daily  News.  You  simply  need  to 
"  state  that  a  reporter  of  the  Daily  News  had  an  inter- 
"  view  with  me  a  few  days  ago,  but  that  most  of  the 
"  statements  in  the  paper  are  lies.  You  must  be  careful 
"  in  your  remarks;  you  don't  know  who  might  be  amongst 
''  us  to-night."  Afterward  the  meeting  was  called  to 
order  and  Fielden  spoke.  "  He  made  a  long  statement 
"  commenting  on  the  article  which  had  appeared  in  the 
"  Daily  News.  He  said,  '  All  the  statements,  or  most  of 
"  the  statements,  are  lies.  Mr.  Spies  did  have  an  inter- 
"  view  with  a  reporter  some  days  ago,  but  the  most  of 
"  the  assertions  brought  forth  in  the  paper  are  not  true.'  ' 
He  further  said,  as  regard  the  dynamite  bombs:  "  //  is 
"  quite  true  -we  have  lots  of  explosives  and  dynamite  in  our 
"  possession  and  -we  ivill  not  hesitate  to  use  it  -when  the  proper 
"  time  comes.  We  care  nothing  either  J or  the  military  or 
"  police,  for  these  are  in  the  pay  of  the  capitalist.  Even  in 
"  the  regular  army  most  of  the  soldiers  are  all  in  sympathy 
"  with  us,  and  most  of  them  have  been  driven  to  enlist- 
"  ment.  I  have  even  had  a  letter  from  a  friend  out  west 
"  who  told  me  that  he  had  seen  a  soldier  on  the  frontier 
"  reading  a  copy  of  the  Alarm.  At  a  later  period, 
"  Fielden  said,  referring  to  the  eight-hour  movement: 
"  'We  don't  object  to  it,  but  we  don't  believe  in  it;  as  to 


6i 

"  whether  a  man  works  eight  hours  a  day  or  ten  hours  a 
"  day,  he  is  still  a  slave.  We  propose  to  abolish  slavery 
"  altogether.' ' 

GUSTAV  LEHMANN,  himself  a  socialist,  and  a  member 
of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein,  testifies  (Vol.  J,  207) 
that  in  January  or  February  of  this  year  (1886)  he  heard 
the  defendant  Engel  make  a  speech  at  Neft's  Hall,  58 
Clybourn  avenue,  before  the  assembly  of  workmen  of 
the  north  side,  in  which  he  said  that  those  zuho  could  not 
arm  themselves  and  who  could  not  buy  revolvers  should  buy 
dynamite,  that  it  was  very  cheap  and  easily  handled',  and 
gave  a  general  description  of  how  bombs  could  be  made, 
how  gas  pipes  could  be  jilled;  that  a  gas  pipe  ?vas  to  be 
taken  and  a  wooden  block  put  into  the  end,  and  it  was  to  be 
jilled  with  dynamite;  then  the  other  end  is  also  closed  up 
with  a  wooden  block  and  old  nails  are  tied  around  the  pipe 
by  means  of  wire;  then  a  hole  is  bored  into  one  end  of  it 
and  a  fuse  with  a  cap  is  put  into  that  hole;  that  the  nails 
should  be  tightened  to  the  pipe  so  that  when  it  explodes 
there  will  be  many  pieces  flying  around ;  that  gas  pipe  could 
be  found  on  the  west  side  from  the  river,  near  the  bridge. 

WILLIAM  SELIGER,  a  member  of  the  "International," 
testified  (Vol.  I,  527),  that  he  heard  Engel,  one  of  the 
defendants,  make  a  speech  to  the  north  side  group  in 
Neff's  Hall,  last  winter,  in  which  he  said  that  everyone 
should  manufacture  bombs  for  themselves;  that  pipes 
could  be  found  everywhere  without  any  cost;  that  the 
pipes  were  to  be  closed  up  with  wooden  blocks  fore  and 
aft,  and  that  in  one  of  the  blocks  was  to  be  drilled  a  hole 
for  the  fuse  and  cap;  that  every  workingman  should  arm 
himself  with  them;  that  they  were  cheap  to  be  had  and 
were  the  best  means  against  the  police  and  capitalist. 


62 

MORITZ  NEFF,  who  was  the  keeper  of  the  hall  known 
as  Thoeringer  Hall,  sometimes  called  "  The  Shanty  of  the 
Communists,"  and  also  called  Neff's  Hall,  testified  (J, 
269)  that  he  heard  Engel  address  a  public  meeting  of 
the  north  side  group  at  that  place;  that  he  addressed  the 
meeting  on  general  principles,  and  came  around  and 
wanted  money  for  a  new  paper  which  they  had  started. 

"  It  is  called  the  '  Anarchist';  it  is  a  paper  started  by  the 
north-west  side  group  and  two  of  the  south  side  groups. 
He  came  there  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  money  in 
order  to  push  the  paper  along.  He  said  that  the  Ar- 
beiter  Zeitung  was  not  outspoken  enough  in  those  an- 
archistic principles;  therefore  it  was  necessary  to  start 
something  else,  and  for  this  purpose  they  started  this  pa- 
per; they  distributed  some  of  these  papers  around  there; 
and  after  that  he  sat  down.  .Later  on  he  spoke  again,  and 
he  gave  a  kind  of  history  of  revolutions  in  the  old  coun- 
try, and  stated  that  the  nobility  of  France  were  only 
forced  to  give  up  their  privileges  by  brute  force;  and  then 
he  stated  that  the  slaveholders  at  the  south  had  only  lib- 
erated their  slaves  after  being  compelled  by  force  by  the 
northern  states,  and  therefore,  he  said,  that  the  present 
wage-slavery  would  only  be  done  away  with  by  force 
also;  and  he  advised  them  to  arm  themselves,  and  if  guns 
were  too  dear  for  them  they  should  use  cheaper  means — 
dynamite,  or  anything  they  could  get  hold  of  to  fight  the 
enemy.  He  stated  that  in  order  to  make  bombs  it  was 
not  necessary  that  they  should  be  round;  anything  that 
was  hollow  inside  would — in  the  shape  of  gas  pipes,  or 
something  like  that.  *  *  *  This  was  in  the  speech 
that  he  made;  he  sat  down  afterwards.  It  was  custom- 
ary to  have  a  discussion  after  the  speech  was  made,  and 
anybody  that  wanted  to  ask  the  speaker  a  question  could 
do  so.  That  part  of  the  speech  I  did  not  hear;  I  was  in 
the  saloon." 

The  witness  then  identified  the  paper  spoken  of  as 
"The  Anarchist"  (a  copy  of  which  appears  as  People's 
Exhibit  32). 


(C.)     THE  WORK  OF  PREPARATION. 

Not  only  were  the  defendants  advocating  through  the 
press  and  by  speech,  in  public  and  in  private,  the  doc- 
trines which  they  announced,  and  thus  actively  engaged 
in  the  work  of  propaganda,  but  at  the  same  time  they 
were  diligently  making  preparations  to  carry  their  theo- 
ries into  effect. 

There  were  in  the  city  a  large  number  of  groups  of  the 
International,  a  portion  of  the  membership  in  each  one  of 
which  was  armed  and  called  the  armed  section.  There 
were  also  a  number  of  companies  of  an  organization  local 
to  Chicago,  known  as  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein.  These 
organizations  acted  in  concert  and  were  all  armed  and 
drilled  for  the  express  purpose  of  being  in  a  position  to 
bring  about  the  social  revolution  whenever  the  time  for 
its  inauguration  should  be  most  favorable.  All  these  va- 
rious bodies  were  known  as  armed  men,  and  whenever 
the  notice  appeared  in  the  "  Briefkasten,"  or  letter-box, 

of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  "  Y,  Komme "  with  the 

date  inserted,  they  met  at  54  West  Lake  street,  a  place 
known  as  Greif's  Hall,  a  beer  saloon,  which  was  a  ren- 
dezvous for  the  socialists  and  anarchists  of  all  grades. 
They  were  not  only  armed  with  the  arms  known  to  civil- 
ized warfare  and  drilled  in  tactics  recognized  as  honorable 
among  civilized  nations,  but  were  also  engaged  in  the 
manufacture  of  explosives  of  a  kind  known  only  to  the 
revolutionists,  in  the  purchase  of  dynamite  and  in  experi- 
ments with  it.  The  Alarm  and  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung 
were  constantly  publishing  instructions  of  the  most  prac- 
tical kind  for  the  revolutionists.  Some  of  these  articles, 
as,  for  instance,  Bakunin's  Groundwork,  published  in- 


64 

the  Alarm  and  the  Arbeiter  editorial  about  revolutionary 
deeds,  are  in  effect  codes  of  ethics  and  at  the  same  time 
manuals  of  tactics  for  the  revolutionist.  Their  doctrines 
and  teachings  agree  in  every  respect,  and  not  only  agree 
with  themselves,  but  are  also  identical  with  those  of 
Most's  book.  Others  of  the  articles  are  descriptive  of  the 
method  of  the  manufacture  and  use  of  dynamite  and  other 
explosives,  the  manufacture  and  use  of  bombs  and  other 
instruments,  taken  sometimes  from  Most's  book  and 
sometimes  from  other  sources.  Publishing  also  letters 
from  and  giving  advice  to  correspondents  upon  these 
subjects  with  an  openness  and  abandon  that  is  astonishing, 
and  is  indicative  of  the  perfect  contempt  in  which  they 
hold  both  the  law  and  the  public  opinion  of  the  land. 

That  there  was  such  an  organization,  that  it  was  armed, 
they  made  it  no  secret,  but  declared  it  openly  in  the  edi- 
torial columns  of  their  papers,  and  in  speeches  and  pri- 
vate conversation.  In  fact,  the  very  openness  and  pub- 
licity with  which  these  declarations  were  made  is  seized 
upon  by  counsel  as  furnishing  ground  for  an  argument 
that  no  such  preparations  could  have  been  made,  and  that 
the  talk  was  "  mere  braggadocio,"  counsel,  forgetting 
that  every  criminal  offense  has  in  it  a  very  large  element 
of  foolishness,  and  forgetting,  also,  that  for  these  men  to 
succeed  they  must  make  converts  in  whom  they  must  in- 
spire confidence,  and  forgetting,  also,  that  one  of  the  car- 
dinal doctrines  of  the  revolutionists  is  that  by  the  inspira- 
tion of  terror  the  "  property-owning  beasts  "  can  be  more 
easily  demoralized,  and  the  cause  of  the  revolutionists 
more  easily  attained. 

In  the  library  of  the  general  committee,  which  was  a 
sort  of  central  committee,  composed  of  delegates  from 
the  different  groups  in  the  city,  and  which  met  in  the 


65 

Arbeiter  Zeitung  building,  were  kept  many  copies  of  a 
book  written  by  John  Most,  now  of  New  York,  entitled 
"  The  Science  of  Revolutionary  War,"  a  book  the  pur- 
pose of  which  is  accurately  described  by  its  title.  This 
book  was  distributed  and  sold  at  the  meetings  of  the  va- 
rious organizations,  and  also  at  picnics  and  public 
meetings  held  under  the  auspices  of  the  organization; 
large  portions  of  it  were  reprinted  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung, 
although  there  credited  to  "  Die  Freiheit,"  Most's  paper, 
published  in  New  York.  Translations  were  also  printed 
in  the  Alarm.  This  book  is  a  practical  treatise  on  revo- 
lutionary warfare,  describing  in  the  most  practical  man- 
ner, so  as  to  be  understood  by  any  man  of  ordinary  intel- 
ligence, the  best  methods  known  for  the  manufacture  of 
dynamite,  fulminate  of  mercury,  nitro-glycerine,  nitro- 
gelatine  and  other  powerful  and  dangerous  explosives, 
the  manufacture  of  bombs,  of  fire  cans  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  buildings  with  inextinguishable  compounds,  the 
manufacture  of  weapons,  of  deadly  poisons,  the  best  and 
safest  method  of  administering  the  poison.  It  is  also  a 
manual  of  tactics,  describing  minutely  the  method  of  rev- 
olutionary warfare,  the  manner  in  which  revolutionary 
deeds  shonld  be  accomplished,  so  as  to  be  at  the  same 
time  the  most  effectual  and  to  be  accomplished  with  the 
least  danger  to  the  revolutionists.  It  is  also  a  code  of 
ethics  for  the  revolutionist,  its  teachings  corresponding 
with  the  teachings  of  the  various  editorials  and  other  ar- 
ticles in  tfre  Arbeiter  Zeitung  and  the  Alarm,  as  well  as 
the  speeches  of  the  various  defendants.  It  is  a  book 
which  also  shows  the  revolutionist  to  be  utterly  devoid  of 
conscience,  and  which,  for  cold-blooded  diabolism,  has  no 
counterpart  in  the  whole  range  of  literature.  It  is  the 
book  from  which  the  defendants,  Lingg  and  Fischer, 


66 

learned  the    manufacture    and   use    of    deadly   weapons. 
(I,  353-4;  K,  507.) 

Upon  this  branch  of  the  case,  we  desire  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  your  Honors  to  the  following  evidence: 

(l).  THE  CODE  OF  ETHICS  AND  THE  MANUAL  OF 
TACTICS. 

"  Bakunin's  Groundwork  for  the  Social  Revolution,"  a 
document  published  in  the  Alarm,  December  26,  1885 
(Exhibit  54),  is  perhaps  as  cold-blooded,  as  wicked  and 
diabolical  an  article  as  was  ever  conceived  in  the  brain  of 
man  or  penned  by  his  hand.  The  man  who  wrote  it  and 
the  men  who  reproduced  it  must  be  wholly  without  con- 
science and  utterly  without  natural  affection.  It  is  at  once 
a  code  of  ethics  and  a  manual  of  tactics  for  the  revolu- 
tionist. 

"  A  revolutionist's  duty  to  himself. 

"  i.  The  revolutionist  is  a  self-offered  man.  He  has 
no  personal  interest,  feelings  or  inclinations;  no  property, 
not  even  a  name.  Everything  in  him  is  consumed  by  one 
single  interest,  by  one  single  thought,  one  single  passion 
— the  Revolution. 

"  2.  The  whole  work  of  his  existence,  not  only  in  words 
but  also  in  deeds,  is  at  war  with  the  existing'  order  of  soci- 
ety, and  with  the  whole  so-called  civilized  -world;  with  its 
laws,  morals  and  customs  he  is  an  uncompromising  opponent. 
He  lines  in  this  world  for  the  purpose  to  more  surely  de- 
stroy it. 

"3.  The  revolutionist  despises  every  doctrine  and  dis- 
claims society  in  its  present  form.  He  leaves  the  re- 
organization of  society  to  the  future  generations.  He 
knoivs  only  one  science;  the  science  of  destruction.  He 
studies  mathematics,  physics,  chemistry  and  perhaps  med- 
icine for  and  only  for  this  purpose.  For  the  same  reason 
he  studies  day  and  night  the  living  science  of  men,  char- 
acters, conditions  and  also  the  situation  of  the  present 
socia  '  order.'  The  quick  and  sure  destruction  of  the  pres- 


67 

cut  unreasonable  order  of  the  world  is  the  object  of  these 
studies. 

"  4.  He  despises  public  sentiment.  He  despises  and 
hates  the  present  social  'morality'  in  all  its  instigations 
and  manifestations.  He  acknowledges  as  moral  whatever 
favors  the  triumph  of  the  revolution;  immoral  and  crim- 
inal whatever  checks  it. 

"  5.  The  revolutionist  is  a  consecrated  being  (who 
does  not  belong  to  himself)  ;  he  would  not  spare  the  state 
in  general  and  the  entire  class  society,  and  at  the  same  time 
does  not  expect  mercy  for  himself.  Bet-ween  him  and 
society  reigns  the  war  of  death  or  life,  publicly  and  secretly, 
but  ahvays  steady  and  unpardoning.  He  has  to  get  used 
to  standing  all  endurance. 

"  6.  Stringent  with  himself  he  must  also  be  to  others. 
All  weak  sentiment  towards  relation,  friendship,  love  and 
thankfulness  must  be  suppressed  through  the  only  cold 
passion  of  the  revolutionary  work.  For  him  there  exists 
only  one  benefit,  one  wager,  one  satisfaction — the  effect 
of  the  revolution.  Day  and  night  dare  he  have  only  one 
thought,  one  aim:  The  unmerciful  destruction;  while  he, 
cold-blooded  and  without  rest,  follows  that  aim,  he  himself 
must  be  ready  to  die  at  any  time  and  ready  to  kill  with  his 
own  hands  any  one  who  seeks  to  thwart  his  aim. 

#•*##*#*## 

"  The  revolutionist's  duty  towards  his  revolutionary 
comrades: 

"9.  It  is  unnecessary  to  speak  of  the  fellowship 
amongst  the  revolutionists;  upon  them  exists  the  entire 
might  of  the  revolutionary  work.  Comrades  of  the  revo- 
lution who  stand  even  high  on  the  revolutionary  under- 
standing and  revolutionary  habit  must  as  much  as  possible 
consult  all  important  affairs  in  common  and  take  resolu- 
tion unanimously.  In  executing  a  resolved  upon  case, 
everybody  must  as  much  as  possible  depend  upon  himself. 
In  case  where  a  lot  of  destructive  deeds  is  to  be  done,  every- 
body must  be  self -operating  and  request  help  and  counsel  of 
his  comrades  only  in  cases  where  i't  is  absolutely  necessary 
for  success. 

"  10.  Every  comrade  of  the  revolution  shall  have  sev- 
eral revolutionists  in  the  second  or  third  order,  on  hand, 


68 

that  is,  such  persons  as  are  not  thoroughly  instructed;  he 
shall  dispose  of  them  as  a  trusted  part  of  the  revolu- 
tionary capital.  He  shall  use  his  part  of  the  capital 
economically,  in  order  to  get  as  great  results  from  them 
as  possible.  He  shall  dispose  of  himself  as  so  much 
capital  to  be  used  for  the  triumph  of  the  work  of  the 
revolution,  but  a  capital  which  he  cannot  dispose  of  with- 
out the  full  consent  of  all  the  fully  consecrated  comrades. 

The  revolutionist's  duty  towards  society. 

"  13.  A  revolutionist  moves  in  the  world  of  state,  in  the 
world  of  classes,  in  the  so-called  '  civilized '  world,  and 
lives  in  the  same,  just  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  be- 
lieves in  its  speedy  destruction.  He  is  no  true  revolutionist 
who  clings  to  anything  at  all  in  this  bourgeoise  world. 
He  dare  not  shrink  where  the  cause  is  at  stake  or  refuse 
to  break  any  tie  which  binds  him  to  the  old  world,  or  hes- 
itate to  destroy  any  institution  or  its  upholders.  Equally 
must  he  hate  everything,  but  that  is  anti-revolutionary. 
So  much  the  worse  for  him  if  he  has  in  the  present  world 
ties  of  relation,  friendship  or  love;  he  is  no  revolutionist  if 

these  ties  are  able  to  arrest  his  arm. 

*  *  *  *  *• 

"  15.  The  entire  filthy  society  of  our  time  should  be 
divided  into  different  categories.  The  first  one  consists  of 
those  wbo  are  immediately  sentenced  to  death.  The  mem- 
bers may  make  up  lists  of  such  delinquents,  in  a  degree 
according  to  their  rascality,  and  in  regard  to  the  effect  of 
the  revolutionary  work,  but  so  that  the  first  numbers  may 
be  served  before  the  rest. 

"  16.  In  making  up  these  lists,  and  arranging  the  cate- 
gories, the  individual  corruptionist  dare  not  justify  him- 
self or  perhaps  the  hatery  by  which  he  is  feared  to  the 
members  of  the  organization  or  the  people,  because  cor- 
ruption is  useful,  when  it  is  able  to  stir  up  a  riot.  The 
measure  of  usefulness  is  only  to  be  considered,  which  may 
result  from  the  death  of  a  certain  person  for  revolutionary 
work.  ///  the  first  place,  those  persons  are  to  be  destroyed 
•who  are  most  harmful  to  the  revolutionary  organization, 
and  whose  violent  and  sudden  death  is  able  to  terrify  the 
governments  and  shake  their  might  the  most,  in  so  far 


69 

as  it  will  rob  the  -powers  that  be  of  their  most  energetic 

and  intelligent  agents. 

#  *  #  -x-  #  #  # 

"21.  The  sixth  category  is  of  importance.  It  is  the 
women,  who  are  to  be  divided  into  three  classes:  To  the 
first  belong  the  perfunctorious  women,  without  intellect  or 
heart,  who  are  to  be  used  in  the  same  manner  as  the  men 
in  the  third  and  fourth  categories.  To  the  second  class 
belong  the  passionate,  devoted  and  qualified  women,  who, 
although  they  do  not  belong  to  us,  because  they  have  not 
risen  to  the  practical,  praiseless,  revolutionary  comprehen- 
sion, they  must  be  handled  as  the  men  in  the  fifth  cate- 
gory. In  the  third  category  are  the  women  who  are 
wholly  consecrated  to  the  social  revolution,  that  is,  they 
have  accepted  our  whole  programme.  They  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  most  valuable  part  of  the  revolutionary  treas- 
ures, for  without  their  assistance  we  are  unable  to  achieve 
the  social  revolution" 

In  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  March  16,  1885,  is  an  edi- 
torial entitled  "About  Revolutionary  Deeds."  This  arti- 
cle is  in  effect  a  treatise  upon  the  method  of  carrying  on 
revolutionary  warfare.  It  begins  with  a  highly  poetical 
description  of  the  present  condiiion  of  society,  and  then 
proceeds  (Exhibit  109): 

"  Peculiar  is  the  task  of  the  critic;  it  bears  a  great  simi- 
larity to  that  of  an  anatomist  or  physiologist.  As  he, 
free  from  every  inward  excitement,  takes  the  dissecting 
knife  into  his  hand,  cuts  the  corpse,  examines  the  organs, 
looks  for  abnormities  and  follows  up  the  results  which 
these  have  produced  from  the  mutual  contact  of  the  or- 
gans, thus  in  similar  manner  the  critic  has  to  dissect  revo- 
lutionary actions  into  their  atoms  and  observe  to  study 
and  compare,  to  draw  conclusions  and  develop  theses, 
thereby  to  sharpen  and  make  more  effectual  that  side  of 
the  two-edged  blade,  revolutionary  action,  which  is  turned 
towards  tyranny  and  to  dull  and  thus  make  less  danger- 
ous the  opposite  side.  This  is  the  task  of  the  following 
lines:  In  all  revolutionary  action  three  different  epochs  of 
time  are  to  be  distinguished,—/?;^/,  the  portion  of  prepa- 
ration for  an  action,  then  the  moment  of  the  action  itself, 


and  finally  that  portion  of  time  which  follows  the  deed.  All 
these  portions  of  time  are  to  be  considered  one  after  an- 
other. 

"  In  the  first  place,  a  revolutionary  action  should  suc- 
ceed. Then  as  little  as  possible  ought  to  be  sacrificed, 
that  is,  in  other  words,  the  danger  of  discovery  ought  to  be 
'weakened  as  much  as  possible  and  if  it  can  be  should  be  re- 
duced to  naught;  this  calls  for  one  of  the  most  important 
tactical  principles  -which  briefly  might  be  formulated  in 
the  words:  Saving  of  the  combatants.  All  this  constrains 
us  to  further  explain  the  measures  of  organization  and  tac- 
tics -which  must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  such  an 
action. 

"  Mention  was  made  of  the  danger  of  discovery.  That 
is,  in  fact,  present  in  all  three  of  the  periods  of  conflict. 
This  danger  is  imminent  in  the  preparation  of  the  action  it- 
self, and  finally,  after  the  completion  thereof;  the  question 
is  now,  how  can  it  be  met? 

"  If  we  view  the  different  phases  of  the  development  of 
a  deed  we  have_/£rs/,  the  time  of  preparation. 

"  It  is  easily  comprehensible  for  everybody  that  the 
danger  of  discovery  is  the  greater  the  more  numerous  the 
mass  of  people  or  the  group  is  which  contemplates  a  deed, 
and  vice  versa.  On  the  other  hand,  the  threatening  dan- 
ger approaches  the  closer  the  belter  the  acting  persons  are 
known  to  the  authorities  of  the  place  of  action,  and  vice- 
versa.  Holding  fast  to  this,  the  following  results: 

"  In  the  commission  of  a  deed  a  comrade  who  does  not 
live  at  the  place  of  action,  that  is,  a  comrade  of  some 
other  place,  ought,  if  possibility  admits,  to  participate  in 
the  action,  or,  formulated  differently,  a  revolutionary  deed 
ought  to  be  enacted  where  one  is  not  known. 

"A  further  conclusion  which  may  be  drawn  from  what 
was  mentioned  is  this: 

"  Whoever  is  willing  to  execute  a  deed  has,  in  the  first 
place,  to  put  the  question  to  himself,  whether  he  is  able  or 
not  to  carry  out  the  action  by  himself;  if  the  former  is  the 
case,  let  him  absolutely  initiate  no  one  into  the  matter  and 
let  him  act  alone,  but  if  that  is  not  the  case  then  let  him 
look  with  the  greatest  care,  for  just  as  many  fellows  as 
he  must  have  absolutely,  not  one  more  nor  less;  with  these 
let  him  unite  himself  to  a  fighting-group. 


"  The  founding  of  special  groups  of  action  or  of  war  is 
an  absolute  necessity.  If  it  were  attempted  to  make  use  of 
an  existing  group  to  effect  an  action,  discovery  of  the 
deed  would  follow  upon  its  heels,  if  it  would  come  to  a 
revolutionary  action  at  all,  which  would  be  very  doubtful. 
It  is  especially  true  in  America,  where  reaction  has  velvet 
paws  and  -where  asinine  confidentially  is  from  a  certain 
direction  directly  without  bounds.  In  the  preparation  al- 
ready endless  debates  would  develop;  the  thing  would  be 
hung  upon  the  big  bell;  it  would  be  at  first  a  public  se- 
cret and  then,  after  the  thing  -was  known  to  everybody,  it 
would  also  reach  the  long  ears  of  the  holy  Hermandad  (the 
sacred  precinct  of  the  watchman  over  the  public  safety), 
which,  as  is  known  to  every  man,  woman  and  child,  hear 
the  grass  grow  and  the  fleas  cough. 

"In  \ht  formation  of  a  group  of  action  the  greatest  care 
must  be  exercised.  Men  must  be  selected,  who  have  head 
and  heart  in  the  right  spot;  for  of  such  is  true  the  word 
of  the  poet: 

" '  For  here  the  heart  is  yet  considered, 
No  substitute  can  here  be  found; 
But  lor  himself  he  stands  his  ground.' 

"  Has  the  formation  of  a  fighting  group  been  effected, 
has  the  intention  been  developed,  does  each  one  see  per- 
fectly clear  in  the  manner  of  the  execution,  then  action 
must  follozv  with  the  greatest  possible  swiftness  without  de- 
lay, for  now  they  move  within  the  scope  of  the  greatest 
danger  simply  from  the  very  adjacent  reason,  because  the 
selected  allies  might  yet  commit  treason  without  exposing 
themselves  in  so  doing. 

"  In  the  action  itself  one  must  be  personally  at  the  place  to 
select  personally  that  point  of  the  place  of  action  and 
that  part  of  the  action  which  arc  the  most  important  and 
arc  coupclcd  with  the  greatest  danger,  upon  which  de- 
pend chiefly  the  success  or  failure  of  the  whole  affair. 

"  Has  ihe  deed  been  completed?  then  the  group  of  action 
dissolves  at  once  without  furthur  parley,  according  to  an 
understanding,  which  must  be  had  beforehand,  leave  the 
place  of  action  and  scatters  to  all  directions. 

"  If  this  theory  is  acted  upon,  then  the  danger  of  the  dis- 
covery is  extremely  small;  yea,  reduced  to  almost  nothing; 
and  from  this  point  of  view  the  author  ventures  to  say 


72 

thus  and  not  other-wise  must  be  acted  if  the  advance  is  to  be 
proper. 

"  It  would  be  an  easy  matter  to  furnish  the  proof  by  the 
different  revolutionary  acts  in  which  the  history  of  the 
immediate  past  is  so  rich,  that  the  executors  sinned  against 
the  one  or  the  other  of  the  aforementioned  principles,  and 
that  in  this  fact  lies  the  cause  of  the  discovery  and  the  loss 
to  us  of  very  important  fellow  champions  connected  there- 
with; but  we  will  be  brief,  and  leave  that  to  the  individ- 
ual reflection  of  the  reader.  But  one  fact  is  established; 
that  is  this:  That  all  the  mentioned  rules  can  be  observed 
-without  great  difficulties;  further,  that  the  blood  of  our  best 
comrades  can  be  spared  thereby;  finally,  as  a  consequence 
of  the  last  mentioned,  that  light  actions  can  be  increased 
materially,  for  the  complete  success  of  an  action  is  the 
best  impulse  to  a  new  deed  and  the  things  must  always 
succeed  when  the  rules  of  wisdom  are  followed. 

"  A  further  question,  which  might  probably  be  raised, 
would  be  this:  ///  case  a  special  or  conditional  group 
must  be  formed  for  the  purpose  of  action,  what  is  the  duty 
in  that  case  of  the  public  groups  or  the  entire  public  organ- 
ization, in  view  of  the  aforesaid  actions?  Well,  the 
answer  is  very  near  at  hand.  In  the  first  place,  they  have 
to  serve  as  a  covering,  as  a  shield  behind  which  one  of  the 
most  effective  weapons  of  revolution  is  bared;  then  these 
permanent  groups  are  to  be  the  source  from  which  the 
necessary  pecuniary  means  are  draivn  and  fellow  combat- 
ants are  recruited;  finally,  the  accomplished  deeds  are  to 
furnish  the  permanent  groups  the  material  for  critical 
illustration.  These  discussions  are  to  wake  the  spirit  of  re- 
bellion, that  important  lever  of  the  advancing  course  of  the 
development  of  our  race,  without  which  we  would  be  for- 
ever nailed  down  to  the  state  of  development  of  a  gorilla 
or  an  orang  outang.  This  right  spirit  is  to  be  injlamed, 
the  revolutionary  instinct  is  to  be  roused,  which  still  sleeps 
in  the  breast  of  man,  although  these  monsters  which,  by 
an  oversight  of  nature,  were  covered  with  human  skin, 
are  honestly  endeavoring  to  cripple  the  truly  noble  and 
elevated  form  of  man  by  the  pressure  of  a  thousand  and 
again  a  thousand  years,  to  morally  castrate  the  human 
race;  finally,  the  means  and  form  of  conquest  are  to  be 
found  by  untiring  search  and  comparison,  which  enhance 


73 

the  strength  of  each  proletarian  a  thousand-fold,  and 
make  him  the  giant  Briareus,  which  alone  is  able  to  crush 
the  ogres  of  capital. 

"  May  these  modest  lines  give  an  impulse  to  a  general, 
deep  and  lasting  reflection  in  this  direction,  for  the  situation 
in  -which  -we  are  is  of  a  doubly  serious  nature.  Already  the 
single-handed  fight,  already  the  small  warfare  has  com- 
menced at  many  a  point  of  our  line  of  battle.  Already 
the  hydra  of  every  tyranny  is  winding,  coiling  itself;. step 
by  step  it  goes  forward  in  spite  of  the  ruling  monsters 
and  Iscariots  of  the  people,  Now,  it  is  the  thing  to  put 
down  the  fencing  mask  and  to  put  in  position  the  lance 
and fight  with  the  sharpest  and  most  effective  means,  and 
fight  2vith  the  employment  of  the  greatest  cunning  against 
our  bestializcd,  demoralized  enemy.  If  then  follows  at 
fast  an  early  rising'  en  masse,  then  let  every  one  of  us, 
without  an  exception,  be  mindful  of  the  words  of  the  poet: 

"  '  For  virtue,  rights  of  man  and  liberty  to  die, 

Is  reward  of  highest  nature,  is  death  of  a  savior  of  the  world. 
And  onlv  the  most  brave  of  the  heroes  of  mankind 
Do  dye  their  armor  red  in  these  with  their  heart's  blood''1 

(Signed)          "  Z." 


(2.)   PRACTICAL  INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  THE  REVOLUTIONIST. 

In  the  Alarm  of  October  18,  1884  (People's  Exhibit 
21),  is  an  article  referring  to  one  in  the  Inter  Ocean 
which  denounces  anarchism,  and  declaring  that  if  the 
American  people  became  alarmed  at  the  movements  of 
anarchism  their  -action  would  be  infinitely  more  condign, 
vengeful,  sharp  and  decisive  than  that  of  the  European 
powers.  On  that  article  the  Alarm  comments  as  follows: 

"  The  Inter  Ocean  man  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  one 
man  armed  with  a  dynamite  bomb  is  equal  to  one  regi- 
ment of  militia  when  it  is  used  at  the  right  time  and  place. 
Anarchists  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  bayonet  and 
Gat  ling  »-nii  wiu  cut  but  sorry  part  in  the  social  revo- 
lution. The  whole  method  of  warfare  has  been  revolu- 
tionized by  latter-day  discoveries  of  science,  and  I  lie 


74 

American  people  will  avail  themselves  of  its  advan- 
tages in  tke  conflict  of  upstarts  and  contemptible  brag- 
garts w/io  expect  to  continue  their  rascality  under  the 
plea  of  preserving  law  and  order" 

In  the  Alarm  of  November  15,  1884  (People's  Exhibit 
27),  is  an  article  entitled  "The  Butchers  of  Men — What 
Gen.  Phil  Sheridan  says  in  his  annual  report  on  the  sub- 
ject of  capital  and  labor,"  in  which  it  is  alleged  Sheridan 
expressed  the  opinion  that  banks,  public  buildings,  com- 
merce, entire  cities,  could  be  easily  destroyed  by  explo- 
sives, and  which  those  attacking  could  carry  in  their 
pockets.  The  article  concludes: 

"  What,  then,  is  the  use  of  an  army?  What  is  to  pre- 
vent its  destruction  in  the  same  manner?  Dynamite  is 
the  emancipator!  In  the  hand  of  the  enslaved  it  cries 
aloud:  'Justice  or — annihilation.'  But,  best  of  all,  the 
workingmeri  are  not  only  learning  its  use;  they  are  going 
to  use  it.  They  will  use  it,  and  effectually,  until  personal 
ownership — property  rights — are  destroyed.,  and  a  free 
society  and  justice  becomes  the  rule  of  action  among  men. 
There  will  then  be  no  need  for  government,  since  there 
will  be  none  to  submit  to  be  governed.  Hail  to  the  social 
revolution!  Hail  to  the  deliverer — dynamite" 

\ 
In   the  Alarm  of  December  6,  1884  (People's  Exhibit 

31),  is  an  article  which  concludes  as  follows: 

"  A  hint  to  the  wise  is  sufficient.  Of  course,  Gen. 
Sheridan  is  too  modest  to  tell  us  himself  that  an  army  will 
be  powerless  in  the  coming  revolution  between  the  prop- 
ertied and  propertyless  classes.  Only  in  foreign  wars  can 
the  usual  weapons  of  warfare  be  used  to  any  advantage. 
One  dynamite  bomb  properly  placed  will  destroy  a  regi- 
ment of  soldiers,  a  weapon  easily  made,  and  carried  with 
perfect  safety  in  the  pockets  of  one's  clothing.  The  First 
Regiment  may  as  well  disband,  for,  if  it  should  ever  level 
its  guns  upon  the  workingmen  of  Chicago,  it  can  be  to- 
tally annihilated." 


75 

In  the  Alarm  of  March  21,  1885,  appears  this  article 
(People's  Exhibit  41): 

"  How  TO  MAKE  DYNAMITE. 

"  The  next  issue  of  the  Alarm  will  begin  the  publication 
of  a  series  of  articles  concerning  revolutionary  warfare, 
viz:  'The  manufacture  of  dynamite  made  easy.' 
*  Manufacturing  bombs.'  '  How  to  use  dynamite  prop- 
erly.' '  Exercises  in  the  use  of  dynamite  by  the  military 
department  of  the  United  States  and  other  countries.' 
Each  of  these  article,}  will  be  complete  and  thorough  on 
the  subject  considered  by  them.  Agents  can  order  copies 
of  paper  containing  the  above  information  in  advance." 

In  the  Alarm  of  April  i8th,  1885  (People's  Exhibit 
43),  is  an  article  headed  "  Explosives— the  power  of  dyna- 
"  mite  illustrated  by  blasting  exercises,"  translated  from 
'Die  Freiheit,'  by  'A.  A.'  It  is,  in  reality,  a  translation 
from  Most's  book,  as  will  appear  upon  the  comparison  of 
those  articles  with  pages  16,  17  et  seg.  of  that  book  (a  copy 
of  which  is  set  out  as  People's  Exhibit  15).  The  article 
concludes  ("to  be  continued  "),  with  this  note  attached, 
*'  Note:  '  In  our  next  issue  we  will  give  a  description  of 
dynamite  guns,  gun  cotton,  fulminate  of  silver  and  of 
mercury.'  A.  A." 

In  the  Alarm  of  May  2,  1885  (People's  Exhibit  44),  is 
an  article  entitled  "Bombs.  The  manufacture  and  use 
of  the  deadly  dynamite  bomb  made  easy.  The  weapon 
of  the  social  revolutionist  placed  within  the  reach  of  all. 
The  terror  of  tyrants.  (Translated  from  Freiheit  by  A. 
A.)" 

This  article  is  also  in  effect  a  translation  from  Most's 
book,  pages  of  it  being  identical  with  pages  of  Most's 
book,  and  simply  varying  a  little  in  the  order. 

In  the  Alarm  of  June  27,  1885  (People's  Exhibit  45),  is 


76 

an  article  headed  "  Dynamite."  "  Instructions  regarding 
its  use  and  operations." 

"  Though  everybody  nowadays  speaks  of  dynamite, 
that  great  force  of  civilization,  some  with  awe,  others 
with  delight,  it  may  be  said  that  but  few  have  any  knowl- 
edge of  the  general  character  and  nature  of  this  explosive. 
For  those  who  will  sooner  or  later  be  forced  to  employ 
its  destructive  qualities  in  defense  of  their  rights  as  men, 
and  from  a  sense  of  preservation,  a  few  hints  may  not  be 
out  of  place. 

"  Dynamite  may  be  handled  with  perfect  safety,  if 
proper  care  is  used.  It  is  a  two-edged  sword  if  handled 
by  one  who  is  not  acquainted  with  its  character.  Dyna- 
mite, which  is  also  known  in  the  market  as  '  giant  pow- 
der' and  '  Herculean  powder,'  is  a  compound  of  nitro- 
glycerine and  clay  (China  clay  is  the  best) ;  in  many  cases 
sawdust  is  used.  It  requires  a  practical  chemist  to  mix 
nitro-glycerine  with  clay  or  sawdust,  for  it  is  a  very  dan- 
gerous piece  of  work.  Revolutionists  would  do  well  to 
buy  the  dynamite  ready  made.  It  is  very  cheap;  much 
cheaper  than  they  can  manufacture  it  for  themselves. 
No.  i  is  the  best.  No.  2  will  do  also.  Dynamite  can  be 
purchased  from  any  large  powder  concern  in  any  of  our 
cities. 

"  Dynamite  explodes  from  heat  and  detonation.  It  is 
self-explosive  at  a  temperature  of  180  degrees  (Fahrenheit) 
and  through  sudden  and  violent  concussion,  as,  for  in- 
stance, produced  by  the  fulminate  of  silver  or  mercury.  If 
you  keep  your  stock  of  dynamite  below  a  temperature  of 
100  degrees,  and  even  125,  it  will  not  explode  itself.  Yet 
you  ought  not  expose  it  directly  to  the  rays  of  the  sun  or 
get  it  too  near  the  stove.  The  best  way  of  storing  it  is: 
Wrap  it  well  in  oil  paper,  place  it  in  a  box  of  sawdust, 
and  bury  it  in  your  cellar,  garden  or  where  nobody  can 
touch  it.  The  moisture  is  neutralized  by  the  sawdust. 
Never  attempt  to  thaw  frozen  dN-namite.  This  requires 
the  skillful  hand  of  a  chemist,  and  is  very  dangerous. 

"  In  handling  dynamite  be  careful  not  to  get  any  of  it  on 
your  lips,  nose,  eyes  or  skin  anywhere;  for  if  you  do  it 
will  give  you  a  terrible  headache.  When  rilling  bombs, 
and  you  must  handle  it  with  your  fingers,  place  a  rubber 


77 

mitten  on  your  hand,  and  tie  a  handkerchief  over  mouth 
and  nose,  so  that  you  may  not  inhale  the  dangerous  gases. 
They  likewise  produce  a  frightful  headache.  In  rilling 
bombs  use  a  little  wooden  stick,  and  never  be  careless. 

"  Keep  the  stuff  pure!  Beware  of  sand.  For  the  revo- 
lutionist it  is  necessary  that  the  revolutionist  should  exper- 
iment for  himself;  especially  should  he  practice  the  knack 
of  throwing  bombs. 

"  For  further  information  address  A.  S.,  Alarm,  107 
5th  ave.,  Chicago." 

It  will  be  recollected  that  the  initials  of  August  Spies, 
are  "  A.  S.,"  and  that  his  address  was  107  5th  avenue. 

In  the  Alarm  of  May  30,  1885,  appears  an  article  en- 
titled, "  War  with  all  means  (translated  from  Frei- 
heit)."  It  is  descriptive  of  the  manufacture  of  combusti- 
ble weapons.  This  article  is  identical  with  Most's  book 
(People's  Exhibit  15),  see  page  30  of  that  exhibit,  et  seq. 
To  this  article  in  the  Alarm  appears  the  following  note  by 
"  A.  A.:"  "  There  are  two  kinds  of  this  fluid,  one  spelled 
"  with  't'  and  the  other  with  '  d.'  The  one  spelled  bi- 
"  sulphu/e  is  right;  the  other  will  not  answer  the  purpose. 
"In  the  foot-note  of  the  article  in  the  last  issue  on  '  fulmi- 
"  nates,'  it  reads  mashed  instead  of  washed.  The  differ- 
"  ence  is  too  great,  for  whoever  should  try  to  mash  ful- 
"  minate  of  silver  would  never  be  able  to  -wash  it.  A.  A." 

In  the  Alarm  of  June  13,  1885,  the  following  article 
appears  (People's  Exhibit  47): 

"  The  Alarm,"  June  13^  1885. 

"  EXPLOSIVES'. 

"  The  explosive  power  of  gun-cotton  has  been  greatly  in- 
creased by  recent  experiments.  In  No.  21  of  the  Alarm, 
the  manufacture  of  gun-cotton  was  published  in  a  precise 
manner.  The  following  taken  from  Johnson  Turner's 
work  on  chemistry  will  prove  an  invaluable  appendage.  It 
says:  'After  the  gun-cotton  is  washed  clean  in  a  light 


78 

-soda  lye,  and  after  being  well  rinsed  out  in  clear  water, 
it  should,  before  being  dried,  be  well  soaked  in  a  solu- 
tion of  chlorate  of  potash.  Such  a  process  will  greatly 
increase  its  explosive  power  and  make  it  the  equal  of 
dynamite.  The  cotton  after  being  soaked  in  the  acids 
and  then  put  in  the  solution  mentioned  will  increase  in 
weight  seventy-five  per  cent.,  /.  e.,  one  pound  of  cotton 
will  then  make  one  and  three-quarter  pounds  of  gun-cot- 
ton. In  washing  and  preparing  it  great  quantities  of 
lye  and  clean  water  should  be  used.  A.  A." 

In  the  Alarm  of  July  25,  1885,  is  an  article  entitled," 

"  STREET  FIGHTING. 

"  How  to  Meet  the  Enemy, 

"  Some  valuable  hints  for  the  revolutionary  soldiers. 
What  an  officer  of  the  United  States  army  has  to  say." 

The  above  is  the  heading  of  People's  Exhibit  48,  which 
describes  with  diagrams  the  method  of  revolutionary  war- 
fare, with  particular  reference  to  street  fighting. 

In  the  Alarm,  from  August  17,  1885,  to  the  last  issue  of 
that  paper  (People's  Exhibit  53),  appeared  the  following 
notice : 

"  The  armed  section  of  the  American  group  meets 
Monday  night  at  54  West  Lake  street." 

In  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  Nov.  27,  1885,  (People's  Ex- 
hibit No.  78)  is  the  following: 

"  LETTER  Box,  S.  Steel  and  iron  are  not  on  hand,  but 
tin  two  or  three  inches  in  diameter.  The  price  is  cheap. 
It  does  not  amount  to  fifty  cents  apiece." 

During  the  months  of  December,  1885,  January,  Feb- 
ruary and  March,  1886,  appeared  the  following  notice 
(People's  Exhibit  No.  82)  headed: 

"  'Exercise  in  Arms.'  Workingmen  who  are  willing 
to  exercise  in  the  handling  of  arms  should  call  every  Sun- 


79 

day  forenoon,  at  half  past  9,  at  No.  58  Clybourn  avenuer 
where  they  will  receive  instructions  gratuitously." 

In  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  March  2,  15,  18  and  25, 1886, 
appeared  the  following  notice: 

"  *  Revolutionary  Warfare  '  has  arrived  and  is  to  be  had 
through  the  librarian  at  loj  ^th  avenue,  at  the  price  of 
ten  cents.'"  (  Vol .  I,  49  7  ) . 

This  was  not  a  -paid  advertisement,  as  appears  from  the 
testimony  of  Fricke,  the  business  manager  of  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung  (I,  490),  as  also  from  the  testimony  of  Seiger, 
the  translator  (I,  498). 

In  the  issue  of  March  15,  1886  (People's  Exhibit  95): 

" '  LETTER  Box.'  Seven  lovers  of  peace.  A  dyna- 
mite cartridge  explodes  not  through  mere  concussion  when 
thrown;  a  concussion  primer  is  necessary." 

January  4  (People's  Exhibit  No.  99)  has  the  following: 

"  Voices  from  the  people.  Nitroglycerine.  Editor 
Arbeiter  Zeitung:  Johann  Most  gave  in  his  speech  at 
Philadelphia,  among  other  things,  a  description  for  the 
preparation  of  nitro-glycerine.  But  as  our  dear  Lord  has 
considered  it  suitable  to  allow  me  to  walk  through  this 
vale  of  sorrow  only  with  the  passable  school  education  of 
which  chemistry  was  no  part,  I  find  Mr.  Most's  receipt  a 
little  obscure,  but  I  would  request  you  to  reproduce  the 
names  of  the  ingredients  and  quantities  of  them  in  a  little 
more  complete  form.  The  consideration  that  your  paper 
is  read  by  thousands  of  young  people  eager  to  learn,  for 
whom  (not  through  their  own  fault)  it  is  impossible  to 
study  chemistry,  and  to  go  through  the  high  schools  and 
colleges  and  to  visit  libraries,  will  no  doubt  move  you  to 
comply  with  my  request."  (Signed)  "  K." 

"  EDITORIAL  ANSWER."  The  most  simple  method  of 
preparation  of  nitro-glycerine  is  the  following:  Prepare 
a  mixture  of  one  part  concentrated  nitric  acid  (i  52-100 
specific  weight)  and  two  parts  strongest  sulphuric  acid 
(i  83-100  specific  weight) ;  some  of  this  mixture  is  placed 
in  a  well-cooled  generator  surrounded  by  ice.  After  this 


8o 

/ 

mixture  of  acids  has  been  in  the  vessel  for  some  time  and 
has  been  well  cooled  in  consequence,  a  few  grains  (15^ 
grains)  of  perfectly  pure  glycerine,  free  from  water,  is 
added.  Hereupon  the  whole  is  poured  out  as  quickly  as 
possible  into  a  larger  quantity  of  cold  water.  The  nitro- 
glycerine that  has  been  formed  is  seen  at  once  dripping  to 
the  bottom  as  a  liquid  of  specific  weight,  looking  like 
drops  of  oil.  Now  the  acid  is  poured  off  the  nitro-glyce- 
rine,  water  is  poured  upon  the  latter,  which  is  again 
carefully  poured  out  and  is  replaced  by  fresh  water.  After 
this  has  been  repeated  several  times,  the  nitro-glvcerine 
is  washed  out  with  a  weak  solution  of  soda  to  completely 
free  it  from  acid,  and  is  then  finally  freed  from  the  water 
by  a  few  small  pieces  of  muriate-chloride  of  calcium. 
This  preparation  is  not  accompanied  with  danger,  but  only 
of  course  in  the  hands  of  an  experienced  man,  who  knows 
exactly  the  nature  of  the  material  which  he  handles.  The 
laymen  ought  not  to  venture  the  experiment.  Signed, 
"  The  Editor." 

January  18,  1885  (People's  Exhibit  No.  101),  is  the 
following: 

"  '  Regarding  Arming.'  In  the  interest  of  arming 
ourselves,  a  meeting  will  take  place  on  Saturday,  the  24th, 
at  8  o'clock,  at  Steinmueller's  Hall,  No.  5  Clark  street,  in 
which  all  our  comrades  who  will  take  an  interest  in  it 
ought  to  participate.  Comrade  Matsinger  will  deliver  a 
lecture  on  the  mode  of  warfare.  Signed,  Committee." 

in  the  issue  of  March  24,  1885  (People's  Exhibit  No. 
114),  is  an  article  takc-n  from  Most's  Revolutionary  War- 
fare, the  English  translation  of  which  is  on  page  25,  of 
Most's  .book,  as  it  appears  in  People's  Exhibit  No.  15. 

In  the  issue  of  February  9th  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung 
is  an  article  entitled  "  Bombs,"  which  was  taken  from 
Most's  book,  purporting  to  be  a  translation  from  '  Die 
Freiheit,'  Herr  Mosl's  organ  in  New  York  (K,  642), 
but  which  is  taken  literally  from  pages  18,  19,  20,  21,  22, 
23  and  24  of  Most's  book,  and  which  appears  in  the 


Si 

translation  of  it  (People's  Exhibit  15),  in   the  record,  on 
pages  12,  13,  14,  15  and  16. 

Upon  this  point,  we  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  testi- 
mony of  the  witnesses  Lehman,  Seliger  and  Neff,  as  to 
the  explicit  directions  given  by  Engel,  in  public  speeches, 
upon  the  manufacture  of  gas-pipe  bombs,  in  which  he 
even  told  the  audience  where  they  could  find  pieces  of 
gas  pipe.  The  evidence  of  these  witnesses  appears  in  the 
brief,  at  pages  61  and  62. 


(3)     EDITORIAL  DECLARATIONS. 

The  Alarm,  January  9,  1885. 

"  In  the  absence  of  the  editor,  as  well  as  the  assistant 
editor  of  the  Alarm,  all  their  duties  and  work  devolved 
upon  me.  The  readers  therefore  will  kindly  excuse  any 
defects  that  they  may  discover  in  this  number. 

"A.  SPIES. 

"  THE    RIGHT    TO    BEAR    ARMS. 

"The  conspiracy  of  the  ruling  against  the  working 
classes  in  1877 — the  breaking  up  of  the  monster  meeting 
on  Market  square,  the  brutal  assault  upon  a  gathering  of 
furniture  workers  in  Vorwarts  Turner  Hall,  the  murder 
of  Tessmann  and  the  general  clubbing  and  shooting  down 
of  peaceably-inclined  wage-workers  by  the  blood-hounds 
of  '  law  and  order  ' — greatly  enraged  the  producers  in 
this  city,  and  also  convinced  them  that  they  had  to  do 
something  for  their  future  protection  and  defense.  The 
result  was  the  organization  of  an  armed  proletarian  corps, 
known  as  the  '•Lehr  und  Wchr  Vere/ii?  About  one  and 
one-half  years  later  this  'corps'  had  grown  so  immensely 
that  it  numbered  over  1,000  well-equipped  and  well-drilled 
men. 

"  Such  an  organization  the  'good  citizens  '  of  our  '  good 
city  '  considered  a  menace  to  the  common  weal,  public 
safety  and  good  order,  as  one  might  easily  imagine,  and 
they  concluded  that  '  something  had  to  be  done.'  And 


82 

very  soon  after  something  was  done.  The  state  legisla- 
ture passed  a  new  '  militia  law,'  under  which  it  became  a 
punishable  offense  for  any  body  of  men,  other  than  those 
patented  by  the  governor  and  chosen  as  the  guardians  of 
*  peace,'  to  assemble  with  arms,  drill  or  parade  the  streets. 
This  law  was  expressly  aimed  at  the  '  Lehr  und  Wehr  Ve- 
rein,'  who,  as  a  matter  of  course,  did  not  enjoy  the  sub- 
lime confidence  and  favor  of  '  His  Excellency.' 

"  The  '  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein,'  at  that  time  composed 
principally  of  socialists,  who  believed  in  the  possibility  of 
a  revolution  by  the  ballot,  looked  upon  this  new  law  as  an 
invasion  into  their  '  constitutional  rights '  as  American 
citizens,  and  subsequently  instituted  a  '  test  case,'  trusting 
that  the  courts  would  revoke  the  law  expressly  manufact- 
ured against  them  as  an  '  unconstitutional  ac'..' 

"  There  were  a  good  many  of  our  comrades  then,  of 
course,  who  opposed  this  comedy  most  vehemently,  and 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  dominating  classes,  rep- 
resented by  their  agencies,  the  courts,  would  not  listen  to 
any  arguments,  nor  recognize  any  so-called  '  constitutional 
rights,'  when  their  privileges  and  their  '  rights '  as  social 
drones  would  be  in  the  least  endangered.  This  counsel, 
however,  was  rejected  and  not  listened  to,  coming,  as  it 
did,  from  the  'extremist.'  Thus  the  'test  case'  was  insti- 
tuted. 

"Judge  Barnum,  of  this  city,  decided  that  the  law  con- 
flicted with  the  rights  of  American  citizens,  and  that  it 
was  therefore  unconstitutional.  An  appeal  was  taken. 
The  Supreme  court  of  this  state  upset  the  decision  of 
Judge  Barnum,  deciding  that  the  law  was  constitutional. 
The  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein,  not  being  up  in  law  very 
high,  did  not  know  whom  to  believe,  and  took  a  further 
appeal  to  the  United  States  Supreme  court,  in  Washing- 
ton. Here  the  case  has  been  resting  for  the  last  five 
years,  until  a  few  days  ago  the  decision  was  given  by 
this  illustrious  tribunal  that  '  certainly  the  law  was  consti- 
tutional,' and  that,  in  fact,  anything  which  in  any  way 
aimed  or  had  the  tendency  of  holding  the  wage-working 
mobs,  the  plebeians  and  -pariahs  in  subjection,  and — of 
course — '  peace  and  order  '  was  constitutional. 

"  Wage- workers,  do  we  need  to  comment  on  this?     No. 

"  That  militia  law  has  also  had  its  beneficial  effects* 


83 

Where  there  once  was  a  military  body  of  men  publicly 
organized,  whose  strength  could  be  easily  ascertained, 
there  exists  an  organization  now  whose  strength  can- 
not even  be  estimated;  a  network  of  destructive  agen- 
cies of  a  modern  military  character  that  will  defy  any 
and  all  attempts  of  suppression..  We  don  t  grumble. 
Make  more  'laws '  if  you  like? 

In  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  (People's  Exhibit  84),  Janu- 
ary 6,  1886,  is  an  editorial  to  the  same  effect.  It  is  as 
follows: 

"  A  NEW  MILITIA  LAW. 

"  To  return  to  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein,  we  have  al- 
ready said  that  after  the  adoption  of  the  law,  the  shallow 
waters  would  gradually  dry  up.  That  lasted  until  about 
the  fall  elections  of  1879,  when  at  once  the  socialistic  vote 
shrunk  to  4,000  votes  (in  the  spring  there  were  over 
1 2,000)  j  then  the  whole  '  movement,'  to  which  (we)  look 
back  with  unaccountable  pride,  was  stopped.  What  was 
done  for  the  mass  of  the  pieople  has  proved  to  be  a  shal- 
low and  unclean  *  *  * 

"  Well,  let  us  drop  the  subject.  The  lesson  of  1877  has, 
meanwhile,  been  forgotten.  Politically  they  could  not 
do  much  with  it,  and  in  a  business  sense — well,  after  the 
failure  of  the  movement,  there  was  not  much  the  matter. 
To  be  brief,  it  did  not  pay  any  more  to  be  a  socialist  or  an 
armed  proletarian.  The  thing  didn't  pay  any  more,  and 
of  the  big  pile  there  remained  but  a  very  little  pile.  But 
this  little  pile  was  a  good  one,  and  had  lately  achieved 
more  than  formerly  the  big  pile.  The  army  has  since 
made  a  gigantic  progress;  where  six  years  ago  a  thou- 
sand men  had  been  armed  with  muskets,  the  majority 
of  wJiich  arc  even  to-day  on  hand,  we  find  to-day 
a  power  which  can  neither  be  fought  by  law  nor  by 
force.  Where  a  military  organization  existed  for- 
merly, the  strength  of  which  was  well  known,  there 
exists  to-day  an  invisible  network  of  fighting  groups, 
tJie  dimensions  of  which  are  beyond  any  calculation, 
and,  therefore,  this  organization  is  a  timely  one.  To 
the  above  law  we  are  partially  indebted  for  that." 


84 


(4.)     SPIES'  DECLARATION  TO  WILKINSON. 

HARRY  WILKINSON,  a  reporter  for  the  Daily  News, 
testified  (J,  142)  that  in  his  professional  capacity  he  had 
a  number  of  interviews  with  August  Spies  in  the  month 
of  January,  1886,  the  interviews  being  instigated  by  the 
fact  that  a  bomb  with  a  partially -burned  fuse  had  been 
found  on  the  steps  of  the  residence  of  Judge  Lambert 
Tree,  in  this  city. 

The  witness  says: 

"  I  inquired  of  him  about  that  explosive  and  one  that 
was  placed  in  the  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  rail- 
road offices,  and  he  empirically  denied  that  those  ma- 
chines were  either  made  or  thrown  by  the  socialists  or 
anarchists,  and  proved  it  by  showing  me  that  they  were 
of  entirely  different  character  from  the  ones  in  use  by  the 
socialists.  At  that  time  he  showed  me  this  (producing  the 
bomb  known  as  the  Czar  bomb)  and  I  look  it  away  with 
me;  he  described  it  as  the  '  CzarJ  and  went  on  to  describe 
the  wonderful  destructive  -power  of  the  Czar  bomb;  said  it 
was  the  same  kind  that  had  been  used  by  the  nihilists  in  de- 
stroying the  Czar,  and  that  was  the  reason  this  was  so 
called.'1''  The  witness  told  him  that  he  thought  it  a  pretty 
"  /«//"  story ',  whereupon  Spies  became  excited  and  -pro- 
duced the  Czar  bomb  and  said  there  were  others  larger 
than  that,  run  by  mechanical  -power,  "  and  exploded  in  that 
manner— clock-work  bombs"  and  he  gave  me  that  in  a 
small  room  just  adjoining  the  counting-room  office  of  the 
-paper  of  which  he  was  editor.  I  asked  him  if  they  made 
those  things  at  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office  besides  print- 
ing a  newspaper  and  doing  job  work;  if  that  was  any 
part  of  their  business,  and  he  said  not;  that  they  were 
made  b\>  other  persons,  and  that  there  were  several  thou- 
sand of  them  in  Chicago  distributed,  and  that  sometimes 
they  were  distributed  through  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office; 
that  those  who  could  make  bombs  made  more  than  they  could 
use,  and  those  who  could  not  make  them  got  them  from 
those  who  could;  that  he  had  a  few  there  for  samples  and 
that  was  one  of  the  samples.  The  whole  matter  was  a 


85 

personal  assignment  from  Mr.  Stone  (the  editor  of  the 
Daily  News),  and  I  asked  Mr.  Spies  if  I  could  take  that 
over  and  show  it  to  him,  and  I  took  it  over  there;  I  didn't 
bring  it  back. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  by  him  as  to  how  force  was 
to  be  administered,  as  to  what  body  of  men  or  who  they 
were  going  to  have  this  force  against? 

"  A.     Upon  another  occasion,  Mr.  Spies — 

"  Mr.  BLACK:  Tell  us  what  that  occasion  was? 

"  A.  Well,  that  was  another  one  of  these  interviews 
following  right  along  in  those,  between  the  first  of  Janu- 
ary and  the  publication  of  that  article.  We  went  to  din- 
ner together,  Mr.  Spies  and  Mr.  Gruenhut  and  myself. 

"Mr.  BLACK:  Gruenhut? 

"  A.  Gruenhut— Joe  Gruenhut.  And  he  told  us  there 
about  the  organization  of  their  -people,  how  they  were  or- 
ganized and  rather  in  a  boastful  manner,  as  I  thought  at 
the  time,  but  I  doift  think  so  now.  Well,  he  described  to 
me  how  ft  hey  had  gone  out  on  excursions  on  nice  summer 
mornings,  some  miles  out  of  the  city,  and  practiced  throw- 
ing these  bombs ;  also  the  manner  of  exploding  them;  THAT 

THEY  HAD  DEMONSTRATED  THAT  THE  BOMBS  MADE  OF 
COMPOUND  METAL  WERE  MUCH  BETTER  THAN  THE  OTHER 
KIND 1  PRESUME  MADE  OF  ALL  LEAD  OR  ALL  METAL. 

I  think  that  was  the  understanding  at  that  time,  and  that 
they  went  out  there  for  the  purpose  of  practicing  throwing 
them,  and  that  they  had  demonstrated  that  a  fuse  bomb, 
such  as  that,  with  a  detonating  cap  inside,  was  by  far  the 
best,  and  at  that  time  he  told  me  of  one  attempt  made  in  his 
presence  where  one  of  their  machines  had  been  exploded  in 
the  midst  of  a  little  grove,  and  that  it  had  entirely  de- 
molished the  scenery,  blown  down  all  the  trees,  four  I  think, 
in  number,  four  or  five.  Well,  he  further  described  to 
me  some  very  tall  and  very  strong  men — an  organization 
of  Swedes;  he  told  me  that  they  could  throw  a  large-size 
bomb,  weighing  five  pounds,  one  hundred  and  fifty  (50) 
paces,  and  further  went  on  to  state  how  these  bombs  were 
to  be  used  in  the  case  of  a  conjlict  with  the  police  or  militia. 
He  didii't  have  a  very  good  opinion  about  the  fighting 
abilities  of  the  militia,  and  stated  so,  that  they 
probably  would  not  stay  to  see  a  second  or  third 
one  go  off,  and  the  idea  was,  as  he  explained  by  taking 


86 

some  little  toothpicks  out  of  the  vase  on  the  table  and 
laying  them  down  and  making  a  street  intersection,  show- 
ing that  if  the  police  or  the  militia  were  coming  marching 
up  a  street  that  the  throwers  would  receive  them  formed 
in  the  shape  of  the  letter  V  in  the  mouth  of  the  street 
just  crossing  the  intersection,  and  that  if  the  conflict 
should  occur  at  any  of  the  principal  street  intersections 
here  in  the  city,  that  there  would  be  a  few  dynamiters — 
that  is  not  what  he  called  them,  but  some  of  these  sec- 
tions of  organized  men  would  be  on  top  of  the  houses  at 
the  street  intersections,  ready  to  throw  bombs  overboard 
and  among  the  advancing  troops  or  police.  And  he  said 
that  these  matters  had  all  been  investigated;  that  the  men 
ivere  all  thoroughly  trained  and  organized;  that  they  un- 
derstood street  warfare  and  had  made  it  an  especial  study, 
and  that  the  rrfeans  of  access  to  the  housetops  at  the 
corners  of  these  street  intersections  was  a  matter  of  com- 
mon information  among  their  adherents;  that  they  all 
knew  how  to  get  up  there  -that  is,  all  those  who  were 
entrusted  with  that  work.  I  asked  about  their  military 
captains,  about  their  drilling  and  training,  and  he  said  that 
they  didn't  have  any;  that  they  had  no  leaders,  that  they 
"were  all  instructed,  one  as  ^veH  as  another,  and  that  iuhcn 
the  great  day  came  that  each  one  would  know  his 
duty  and  do  it.  Then  after  I  had  gotten  nearly 
full  of  that  sort  of  information,  I  began  trying 
to  find  out  when  this  would  probably  occur,  and  he  did 
not  fix  the  date  precisely  or  approximately  at  that  time, 
but  subsequently  informed  me  that,  this  conjlict  would  -prob- 
ably occur  in  the  first  conjlict  between  the  -police  and 
militia;  that  if  the  men  were  to  strike — be  a  universal 
strike  for  this  eight-hour  law,  eight-hour  system — that 
there  would  probably  be  a  conjlict  of  some  sort,  brought 
about  in  some  way,  between  the  First  and  Second  regiments 
of  the  Illinois  National  Guards  and  the  (Chicago  police, 
and  the  dynamiters  on  the  other  hand.  He  said  that  there 
were- thousands  of  bombs  in  the  hands  of  men  who  knew 
how  and  when  to  use  them,  vvho  were  not  afraid  to  use 
them.  In  trying  to  get  at  the  probable  number  of  them 
by  questioning,  I  understood  him  that  there  were  probably 
eight  or  ten  thousand.  He  spoke  of  other  bombs  that 
they  had  experimented  wilh,  larger  ones — as  large  as 


87 

a  cigar  box,  and  that  there  were  machines  to  be  ex- 
ploded by  electricity,  which  would  be  placed  under  the 
street  in  case  they  decided  to  barricade  any  section  of  the 
city — that  they  could  be  placed  under  the  street;  that 
certain  numbers  of  their  organization  had  in  their  pos- 
session a  complete  detail  of  maps  and  plans  of  the  under- 
ground system  of  the  city,  and  that  these  machines  could 
be  placed  there  and  exploded  by  electricity  with  perfect 
safety  by  the  ones  handling  them,  but  that  they  would 
either  destroy  everybody  that  was  above  them  when  they 
went  off,  or  so  tear  up  the  street  as  to  make  it  im- 
passable. 
*  *  #  *  *  # 

"  He  told  me  how  they  did  make  their  dynamite  and  how 
much  better  it  was  than  other  dynamite.  He  said  that  the 
ordinary  dynamite  of  commerce  was  about  a  sixty  per  cent, 
dynamite — sixty  or  sixty-six,  and  that  they  made  a  finer 
quality  by  importing'  their  infusorial  earth  and  mixing-  it 
themselves;  that  they  made  a  dynamite  which  they  regarded 
as  about  a  ninety  per  cent,  quality.  *  *  * 

"  In  a  general  way  I  understood  that  the  object  was  the 
bettering  of  the  workingmen's  condition  by  the  demoli- 
tion of  their  oppressors.  He  spoke  of  a  list  of  names  that 
was  somewhere,  in  a  vague  sort  of  way,  of  prominent 
citizens  here  who  might  suddenly  be  blown  up  one  at  a 
time  or  all  at  once.  I  don't  particularly  remember. 

"  Q.  What  did  you  say,  if  anything,  to  him  about  be- 
lieving these  yarns  of  his — this  story  of  his? 

"  A.  Of  course,  I  affected  not  to  believe  it;  and  that 
is  the  reason  he  was  tantalized. 

"  Q.     The  question  is,  what  did  you  say? 

"  A.  I  said — I  don't  recollect  my  exact  remarks,  but  I 
remember  to  have  frequently  said  that  I  did  not  believe 
much  in  the  story. 

"  Q.     What  was  the  response  to  that? 

"  A.  He  simply  uttered  renewed  declarations.  That 
is  one  of  the  responses  there  on  your  note  paper  (refer- 
ring to  the  Czar  bomb).  I  talked  to  him  in  his  own 
room,  at  his  own  desk,  and  Mr.  Schwab  was  there  once 
or  twice  when  I  was  in,  although  I  was  not  acquainted 
with  him  personally.  *  *  * 

"  Q.     Where  did  he  get  that  bomb  from? 


"  A.  From  one  of  those  little  pigeon-holes  in  that 
room  (a  little  room  partitioned  off  from  the  front  room, 
in  which  were  the  pigeon  holes).  *  *  * 

"  Q.  Now,  so  that  I  may  have  a  clearer  idea  from 
what  you  have  said,  how  did  he  describe  this  intersection, 
their  holding  any  meetings  near  or  at  the  intersection  of 
streets,  at  which  the  police  or  militia  might  march  up? 

"  Mr.  BLACK:  He  has  not  said  anything  about  that. 
He  said  nothing  about  holding  meetings  near  the  inter- 
sections of  streets.  It  is  a  leading  question  to  suggest 
the  subject-matter  to  the  witness.  He  has  talked  about  a 
march,  but  not  about  meetings. 

"  Mr.  GRINNELL:  I  understood  him  differently.  How 
is  that,  Mr.  Wilkinson? 

"  A.  I  spoke  about  their  barricading  and  fortifying 
the  street  corners  in  case  they  see  fit  to  barricade  any 
particular  street  in  the  city,  and  in  speaking  about  that 
he  mentioned  this  Market  square  down  here — what  an 
easy  thing  it  would  be,  and  how  few  men  it  would 
take. 

"  Q.     East  Market  square? 

"  A.  No;  on  the  south  'side,  below  our  office  a  short 
distance. 

<'  Q.     On  the  south  side  of  the  river? 

"A.  Yes,  sir;  that  it  would  take  a  very  few  men  to 
fortify  that  street  against  all  the  militia  and  police  in  Chi- 
cago by  such  means  as  I  have  already  described,  and 
that  they  would  have  the  tunnel  at  their  back  for  a  con- 
venient place  of  retreat  for  those  who  were  not  engaged 
in  throwing  shells^  or  for  women  and  children  who  they 
might  care  to  take  there. 

"  Q.  Now,  what,  if  anything,  was  said  about  meet- 
ings or  warfare  at  intersections  of  streets? 

"A.  Well,  as  I  have  said,  the}'  proposed  to  receive 
them  with  their  line  formed  in  the  shape  of  a  letter  V, 
the  open  end  of  the  letter  V  facing  toward  the  street  in- 
tersection. Then  there  were  to  be  others  to  reinforce 
them,  as  it  were,  on  tops  of  the  houses  at  those  corners, 
and  under  the  street  there  was  to  be  placed  a  ma- 
chine which  would  blow  up  the  street  or  anybody  that 
was  in  it. 

"  Q.      I    wish   you  would   look    at    that   paper  there 


89 

(handing  witness  the  'Daily  News'  of  January  14), 
and  that  plan  down  to  the  bottom — where  did  you  get 
that? 

"  A.  That  is  a  plan  which  I  drew  from  one  that  he 
made  right  on  the  table-cloth  as  we  sat  at  dinner  together, 
except  that  he  did  not  put  in  these  little  squares,  but  ex- 
plained where  these  would  be  to  me,  and  laid  toothpicks 
to  make  these  lines."  (Plan  referred  to  above  appears 
as  People's  Exhibit  13.) 

(The  bomb  described  by  the  witness  as  the  Czar  bomb 
was  then  introduced  in  evidence,  and  photographs  of  same 
appear  as  People's  Exhibits  130  and  131.) 

On  cross-examination  of  this  witness  it  appears  that  Joe 
Gruenhut,  who  was  himself  a  socialist,  said,  "  That  the  con- 
flict to  -which  our  conversation  referred  at  the  table  would 
occur  probably  on  the  first  of  May,  or  within  a  few  days 
thereafter,  and  that  it  might  extend  all  over  the  country" 
*  *  #  * 

"  Q.  How  many  of  those  tall  Swedes  could  throw  a 
five-pound  bomb  fifty  paces? 

"  A.  My  recollection  is  that  it  was  a  company  referred 
to,  without  number. 

"  Q.     Without  stating  how  many? 

"A.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  understood  that  there  were  five, 
I  think — four  or  five  only  of  that  company  who  could 
throw  a  five-pound  one;  that  is  a  large-size  shell  and  fifty 
yards  is  a  long  distance  to  throw  a  shell. 

"  Q.  Did  you  ask  the  names  of  those  four  or  five  men, 
or  any  of  them? 

"  A.  O,  no.  I  did  several  times  ask  for  information 
of  that  kind,  and  he  told  me  then  that  he  described  to  me 
the  character  of  their  organization,  and  that  they  were 
known  only  to  each  other;  that  if  there  were  three  the  first 
would  know  the  second,  and  the  second  a  third,  but  not  the 
third  the  first;  that  it  was  nihilistic  in  its  character,  and 
that  they  were  known  by  other  means  than  names, 

"  Q.  By  the  way,  what  was  Mr.  Spies'  condition 
while  he  was  making  these  revelations  to  you,  as  to 
sobriety? 

"  A.     He  was  sober. 

"  Q.  Seemed  to  understand  what  he  was  saying  at 
the  time? 


9° 

"  A.  Oh,  yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  Did  he  talk  freely  or  did  you  have  to  pump 

him  ?  I  think  that  is  a  phrase  that  as  a  reporter  you  under- 
stand.'' 

"  A.  Both. 

"  Q.  Was  the  pumping  process  one  of  ease  in  this 
case  t 

"  A.  Well,  we  don't  buy  wine  for  everybody,  to  in- 
terview. 

"  Q.  You  bought  wine  for  him,  did  you? 

"  A.     He  ordered  it,  and  I  paid  for  it. 

*  *  *  *  #  * 

"  Q.  How  many  thousand  of  these  grenadiers  were 
there  ? 

"  A.     I  did  not  say  anything  about  grenadiers. 

"  Q.  Or,  to  use  another  term,  how  many  thousand  of 
these  organized — what  do  you  call  them? 

"  A.     Dynamiters. 

"  Q.  Dynamiters,  yes,  for  want  of  a  better  term.  Were 
they  called  dynamiters  in  that  interview? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     What  were  they  called. 

"A.  They  called  them  groups,  and  such— companies 
and  clubs,  and  so  forth. 

"  Q.     Companies  and  groups? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  Well,  now,  how  many  did  they  say  there  were  in 
all  of  these  companies  and  groups?  How  many  did  Spies 
say? 

"  A.  It  was  the  number  of  bombs  distributed  that  I 
referred  to  before;  I  don't  think  that  I  said  anything 
about — 

"  Q.     How  many  bombs? 

"  A.  I  approximated  it  at  eight  to  ten  thousand,  per- 
haps, that  they  had. 

"  Q.  I  am  not  calling  for  your  approximation.  I  am 
wanting  to  know  what  Spies  said  about  it? 

"  A.  As  near  as  I  could  determine  by  questioning  him, 
there  was  that  many. 

"  Q.  Was  the  addition  a  mental  process  of  his,  or  did 
you  figure  it  up? 

"  A.     Between  us  we  arrived  at  that  conclusion. 


"  Q.  That  there  were  from  eight  to  ten  thousand 
bombs  distributed? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

*  *  #  #  #  * 

"  Q.  Wasn't  it  spoken  of,  so  far  as  Mr.  Spies  was 
concerned,  as  simply  illustrating  and  detailng  the  modern 
science  of  street  warfare? 

"  A.     He  did  not  say  so  to  me. 

"  Q.     Wasn't  it  so  spoken  of  in  the  interview? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Did  he,  in  the  course  of  that  conversation,  speak 
of  this  street  warfare  as  a  thing  that  was  for  the  imme- 
diate future  of  Chicago,  or  did  he  speak  of  it  simply  as  in 
general  terms? 

"  A.  He  spoke  of  it  as  a  preparation  for  some  time  not 
mentionec',  ivhen  it  would  be  necessary  for  the— 

"  Q.     Necessary  where? 

"  A.     Here  in  Chicago. 

"  Q.     That  was  mentioned  by  him,  was  it? 

"  A.  He  mentioned  the  street  intersections  which  I 
have  spoken  about? 

"  Q.     Did  he  name  any  streets? 

"  A.     The  Market  square. 

"  Q.     He  named  the  Market  square? 

"  A.  Yes,  and  the  tunnel — the  Washington  street 
tunnel,  I  presume." 

In  reference  to  the  testimony  of  Wilkinson,  we  desire 
to  call  attention  to  the  testimony  of  Detective  Johnson  ( J, 
416),  who  says  that  on  January  I4th  he  attended  a  meet- 
ing of  the  American  group  at  106  Randolph  street.  Be- 
fore the  meeting  he  heard  Spies  say  to  Fielden: 

"  Don't  say  much  about  that  article  in  the  Daily  News. 
You  simply  need  to  state  that  a  reporter  of  the  Daily 
News  had  an  interview  with  me  some  days  ago,  but 
that  most  of  the  statements  in  the  paper  are  lies.  *  *  * 
You  must  be  careful  in  your  remarks;  we  don't  know 
who  might  be  amongst  us  to-night.  After  the  meeting 
was  called  to  order,  Fielden  made  a  statement  com- 
menting on  the  article  which  appeared  in  the  News, 
and  said:  'All  of  these  statements,  or  most  of  the  state- 


92 

ments  are  lies.  Mr.  Spies  did  have  an  interview  with 
a  reporter  some  few  days  ago;  but  most  of-  the  asser- 
tions brought  forth  in  the  paper  are  not  true.  /Is  re- 
gards the  dynamite  bombs,  it  is  quite  true.  We  have 
lots  of  explosives  and  dynamite  in  our  possession,  and  we 
-will  not  hesitate  to  use  it  when  the  proper  time  comes. 
We  care  nothing  either  for  the  military  or  police.  All 
these  are  in  the  pay  of  the  capitalists.  Even  in  the 
regular  army  most  of  the  soldiers  are  in  sympathy  with 
.us;  most  of  them  have  been  driven  to  enlist.  I  have 
had  a  letter  from  a  friend  out  west,  who  told  me  he  saw 
a  soldier  on  the  frontier  reading  a  copy  of  the  Alarm.' 
Later  on  Fielden  said:  '  We  don't  object  to  it  (the 
eight-hour  movement),  but  we  don't  believe  in  it.  As  to 
whether  a  man  works  eight  hours  a  day  or  ten  hours  a 
day,  he  is  still  a  slave.  We  propose  to  abolish  slavery 
altogether.' " 


(5.)  DECLARATIONS  OF  PARSONS  AND  FIELDEN  TN  THE 
PRESENCE  OF  SPIES,  AT  ARBEITER  ZEITUNG  OFFICE, 
AND  WHAT  WAS  SEEN  AND  HEARD  THERE. 

MARSHALL    L.     WILLIAMSON,    a     reporter,     testifies 

(J>  6): 

That  on  the  night  of  the  board  of  trade  demonstra- 
tion, and  after  the  demonstration,  at  the  office  of  the  Ar- 
beiter  Zeitung,  he  had  a  conversation  with  the  defendant, 
Parsons.  "  I  asked  them  why  they  didn't  march  upon 
the  board  of  trade  and  blow  it  up?  He  said,  '  Because 
the  police  had  interfered,  and  they  had  not  expected  the 
police  to  interfere,  and  were  not  prepared  for  them.'  I 
says,  '  Well,  your  party  was  armed ;  why  didn't  you  go 
right  through  the  police?'  He  said,  '  We  were  not  pre- 
pared to  meet  them  as  we  wanted  to.'  I  told  him  that  I 
had  seen  revolvers  exhibited  by  some  in  the  procession, 
and  asked  him  what  further  preparation  they  wanted. 
He  told  me  when  they  met  the  police  they  would  be  pre- 
pared with  bombs  and  dynamite.  Fielden  was  standing  at 
his  elbow  at  the  time,  and  he  said,  '•The  next  time  the 
police  attempted  to  interfere  with  them  they  would  be  pre- 
pared for  them?  I  asked  him  when  that  would  be?  He 


93 

said  he  didn't  know;  '-perhaps  in  the  course  of  a  year  or 
so?  Spies  was  in  the  room;  it  was  the 

front  room  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office.  *  *  * 
I  was  shown  what  they  told  me  was  a  dynamite  cart- 
ridge. The  package  was  about  six  or  seven  inches  long, 
an  inch  and  a  half  or  two  inches  in  diameter,  and 
wrapped  up  in  a  piece  of  paper;  the  paper  was  broken. 
In  the  course — and  after  I  had  conversed  with  Mr.  Par- 
sons awhile,  he  took  out  of  the  broken  place  a  small  por- 
tion of  the  contents.  It  ^vas  a  reddish  color — slightly  red- 
dish— and  he  again  said  it  was  dynamite,  and  that  is  what 
they  would  use  when  they  met  the  police.  He  also  said  that 
he  had  enough  of  that,  where  he  could  put  his  hands  on  it, 
to  blow  up  the  business  center  of  the  city."  The  witness 
was  shown  fuse.  "  The  fuse  was  rolled  in  a  coil;  I  should 
judge  there  was  about  fifteen  or  twenty  feet  of  it.  I  was 
also  shown  a  fulminating  cap,  by  which  they  said  the  dyn- 
amite bombs  were  exploded.  The  cap  was  exploded  in 
the  room  while  I  was  there,  to  show  me  that  it  would  go 
off,  I  presume. 

"  Q.  What  was  the  effect  of  that  explosion  of  the  ful- 
minating cap? 

"  A.  Well,  it  made  quite  a  noise  and  filled  the  room 
full  of  smoke. 

"  Q.  Describe  that  fulminating  cap  as  near  as  you 
can  now? 

"  A.  It  was  copper  and  about  an  inch  long,  and 
perhaps  an  eighth  of  an  inch  in  diameter,  I  should  think. 

"  Q.  In  reference  to  ordinary  common  gun-cap,  the 
old-fashioned  gun-cap,  how  was  its  diameter? 

"  A.  Well,  it  was  about  the  size  of  22-cartridge  cap, 
I  should  think.  Those  things,  when  they  were  shown  to 
me,  they  were  in  a  drawer  in  a  desk,  and  Mr.  Parsons 
called  for  them.  And  Mr.  Spies  was  the  one  that  handed 
them  to  him  to  be  shown  to  me.  *  *  *  I  asked 
him  what  they  were  for — what  they  were  going  to  use 
them  for.  Mr.  Parsons  told  me  that  they  were  preparing 
for  a  fight  for  their  rights;  that  they  believed  they  were 
being  robbed  every  day  by  capitalists  and  the  thieving 
board  of  trade  men.  He  said  it  must  stop.  That  the 
working-man  had  become  sufficiently  enlightened  to  see  that 
he  was  being  robbed,  and  was  going  to  insist  and  fight  for 


94 

his  rights.  He  said  they  were  preparing  in  various  ways 
to  carry  on  their  -warfare.  He  told  me  that  they  had 
bombs,  dynamite  and  plenty  of  rifles  and  revolvers,  and  he 
said  their  manner  of  -warfare  would  be  to  throiu  their 
bombs  from  housetops  and  tops  of  stores,  and  in  that  -way 
they  could  annihilate  any  force  of  militia  or  police  that 
could  be  brought  against  them,  without  any  harm  to  them- 
selves whatever.  *  *  *'  This  conversation  was  had 
with  Mr.  Parsons,  with  Mr.  Fielden  standing  right  along- 
side of  him,  and  after  I  had  had  this  conversation  I  went 
downstairs.  At  the  foot  of  the  stairs  I  met  Detectives 
Trehorn  and  Sullivan,  of  Cottage  Grove  avenue  station. 
I  was  acquainted  with  them;  they  were  standing  down- 
stairs, I  presume,  listening  to  the  addresses  from  the 
window.  *  *  *  I  met  them  and  took  them  upstairs, 
and  renewed  the  conversation  with  Mr.  Parsons,  and  left 
him  talking  with  the  police  officers.  I  stood  by  awhile, 
also  listening  and  joining  in  the  conversation.  The  con- 
versation that  I  had  with  Mr.  Parsons  was,  in  effect,  re- 
peated to  the  police  officers  in  my  presence.  The  officers 
were  in  citizen's  clothing."  The  witness  cannot  say  that 
Parsons  knew  they  were  officers. 

Testimony  of  Officer  TREHORN  (J.  236). 

"  Q.     Do  you  know  Williamson,  a  reporter  ? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     Did  you  meet  him  upon  that  night  ? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

«  Q.     Where  ? 

"  A.     In  front  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung.        *        *        * 

"  Q.      What  occurred  after  you  got  upstairs  ? 

"  A.  After  we  got  up  in  the  office  the  speech-making 
had  closed,  and  they  had  closed  the  windows,  and  Spies 
was  up  in  the  office  that  night;  he  was  standing  by  the 
desk  and  Williamson  asked  him  to  show  him  that  cart- 
ridge again,  and  Spies  handed  the  cartridge  to  Parsons. 

"  Q.      What  did  he  say  it  was  ? 

"  A.  It  was  a  package  about  the  size  of  this  news- 
paper (indicating),  about  twelve  inches  long  and  about 
an  inch  think,  only  a  considerable  larger,  with '  fuse 
attached  to  it;  and  then  I  commenced  talking  to  Parsons; 
I  said  to  him,  '  why  didn't  you  go  to  the  board  of  trade 


95 

as  you  first  intended  and  have  some  of  that  supper?'  he 
said,  '  oh,  the  blood-hounds  were  there  to  prevent  us  as 
usual.'  I  said,  '  why,  there  were  not  many  of  them,  why 
didn't  you  break  through?  '  and  he  says,  «  we  were  not 
exactly  prepared  to,'  and  he  says  (holding  in  his  hand), 
'  here  is  a  thing  that  I  could  knock  a  hundred  of  them 
down  with,  like  ten-pins.' 

"  Q.  Give  us  a  description  of  that,  the  thing  he  al- 
luded to,  when  he  said  that  ? 

"  A.  It  was  a  little  package  about  as  large  as  that 
newspaper,  and  looked  like  a  very  large  fire-cracker. 

"  Q.     Did  he  say  what  it  was  ? 

"  A.     He  said  it  was  a  dynamite  package. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Fielden  up  there  when  it  was 
exhibited  ? 

"A.     Oh,  yes,  he  was  in  the  office. 

"  Q.  Name  all  the  people  that  were  there  as  near  as 
you  can  ? 

"  A.  Spies  was  there,  Schwab,  Parsons,  Mrs.  Parsons 
and  this  Lizzie  Moore,  and  probably  a  dozen  other  people 
whom  I  did  not  know. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  further  conversation  as  to 
what  you  intended  to  do  that  night,  or  anything  about 
that? 

"  A.  He  showed  me  a  coil  of  fuse,  and  I  asked  him 
.what  it  was  used  for. 

"  Q.     Who  showed  you  that? 

"  A.  Parsons  showed  that  to  me;  it  was  in  under  a 
desk,  and  Spies  reached  down  under  the  desk  and  handed 
it  to  Parsons,  and  Parsons  showed  it  to  us,  and  then  I 
asked  him  about  the  dvnamite,  and  he  says  there  is 
enough  there  to  blow  up  that  building.  It  is  very  small 
dynamite  that  would  raise  that.  I  says  it  would  be  dan- 
gerous, you  would  be  killed  in  doing  that;  he  says,  we 
have  plenty  of  fuse,  a  man  could  be  a  block  off  and  blow 
it  up;  and  at  that  time  he  exhibited  this  coil  of  fuse. 

"  Q.  To  what  building  was  reference  made,  if  it  was 
mentioned? 

«  A.     The  board  of  trade." 


96 

Testimony  of  Officer  JEREMIAH  SULLIVAN    (J,  250) : 

"  Q.     Do  you  know  Williamson,  the  reporter? 

"  A.     I  do. 

"  Q.     Did  you  meet  him  that  night? 

"  A.     I  met  him  that  evening. 

« Q.     Where? 

"  A.     Just  as  he  was  coming  downstairs. 

"  Q.     Tell  us  what  occurred  after  you  met  him  ? 

"  A.  He  called  our  attention  to  what  he  saw  upstairs, 
so  we  went  upstairs  with  him,  and  I  met  Mr.  Fielden 
just  as  I  went  in,  and  I  shook  hands  with  him  and  spoke 
with  him. 

"  Q.     You  were  in  citizens'  clothes  that  night? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  Up  to  that  time  had  you  known  any  of  these 
defendants? 

"  A.     I  have  met  five  of  them. 

"  Q.  Do  you  know  whether  you  were  known  to 
them? 

"A.     No,  sir;  they  didn't  know  me  as  a  policeman. 

"  Q.     What  occurred  then? 

"  A.  Then  the  reporter  went  to  show  us  this — they 
went  to  explain  the  fuse  to  us. 

"  Q.     Who  were  there? 

"  A.  Mr.  Fielden,  Mr.  Parsons  and  this  gentleman 
here,  Mr.  Spies,  he  was  at  the  desk;  Mr.  Schwab  was" 
there  also. 

"  Q.     State  what  was   done  and  what  each  one  did? 

"  A.  Mr.  Parsons  went  over  and  asked  Mr.  Schwab 
for  this  dynamite.  He  asked  him,  this  man  here,  Mr. 
Spies — he  brought  it  over  and  Mr.  Parsons  showed  how 
it  could  be  used;  how,  if  it  was  thrown  into  a  line  of 
police  or  the  militia,  it  would  take  the  whole  platoon. 

"  Q.     Was  there  anything  else  exhibited  there? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir;  a  coil  of  fuse. 

"  Q.     What  was  said  about  that,  if  anything? 

"A.  Well,  I  seemed  to  understand  that;  I  says,  'you 
can  get  that  in  any  quarry ;  they  use  that  in  blasting;' 
he  says,  it  comes  in  good  to  load  this  with,  to  touch  this 
with,  to  touch  this  off  with  (referring  to  dynamite  shells). 

"  Q.     Did  vou  see  any  caps  there? 

"  A.     Yes,"  sir. 


97 

«  Q.     What  were  they? 

"  A.  They  were  about  the  size  of  a  twenty-two  cali- 
ber cartridge. 

"  Q.  Will  you  describe  the  substance  that  he  said  that 
if  it  exploded  it  would  blow  up? 

"  A.     Well,  it  had  a  kind  of  a  reddish  tint. 

"  Q.     What  was  it;  was  it  a  stick,  or  what? 

"A.  A  stick,  and  it  was  shaped  about  that  long  (in- 
dicating about  a  foot)  and  about  an  inch  and  a  half  in 
diameter,  but  I  supposed  he  showed  us  dynamite;  it 
looked  like  a  red  sand. 

"  Q.  In  that  connection  did  you  have  any  conversa- 
tion with  Parsons,  or  any  one  in  his  presence,  about  the 
board  of  trade  building,  when  that  was  exhibited? 

"A.  Yes,  sir;  I  asked  one  of  them  why  they  didn't 
go  there;  they  said  they  were  not  prepared  to-night;  that 
there  were  too  many  of  the  blood-hounds  before  them  on 
the  street,  but  that  the  next  time  they  would  turn  out 
they  would  meet  them  with  their  own  weapon,  and  worse. 


(6.)     GROUPS;    ARMED    SECTIONS;    DRILLING;    DYNA- 
MITE; BOMBS;  GUNS;   GENERAL   COMMITTE;  Y,  KOMME. 

GOTTFRIED  WALLER,  a  cabinet-maker,  born  in  Switz- 
erland, and  who  had  lived  for  three  years  in  this  country, 
and  himself  a  socialist,  testified  (Vol.  I,  52):  That 
he  was  a  member  of  a  society  called  the  Lehr  und  Wehr 
Verein;  the  object  of  the  society  was  to  exercise  in  arms, 
military  discipline  and  instruction;  that  he  was  a  member 
of  the  second  group;  that  the  organization  drilled  and 
exercised  in  arms,  and  so  forth;  that  members  of  the  Lehr 
und  Wehr  Verein  had  no  names,  but  -were  known  by  num- 
bers (page  98) ;  that  each  man  ^iad  his  own  number. 
The  witness'  number  was  nineteen. 
******** 

"  Q.     Where    were  you  on  the   evening   of  the   3d   of 
May? 

"  A.     In  Greif's  Hall,  on  West  Lake  street.      *     *     * 


9s 

"  Q.     How  did  you  come  to  go  to  that  hall? 

"  A.  On  account  of  an  advertisement  in  Arbeiter  Zei- 
tung. 

"  Q.  When  did  you  see  the  advertisement  in  the  Ar- 
beiter Zeitung? 

"  A.     On  Milwaukee  avenue,  in  Thalia  Hall.     *    *     * 

"  Q.     What  was  the  advertisement  which  you  saw? 

"  A.      The  letter  «•  /",'  come  Monday  night.     *     *     * 

"  Q.  What  is  the  word  just  before  the  words  which 
you  have  read? 

"  A.     Briefkasten,  which  means  letter-box. 

"  Q.  Did  this  expression  (the  letter  Y),  followed  by 
the  words  'come  Monday  night,'  have  any  meaning  among 
the  society  to  which  you  belonged? 

"A.  //  was  nothing"  but  a  sign  that  our  meeting'  was  to- 
take  -place  there. 

"  Q.     Whose  meeting? 

"  A.      Of  the  armed  section. 

"  Q.     Should  meet  where? 

"  A.     It  always  met  in  Greif's  Hall. 

*#*###### 

(I,  95.)  "That  on  Thanksgiving  day  in  the  year  1885 
he  was  given  a  gaspipe  bomb  seven  or  eight  inches  long 
by  the  defendant  Fischer. 

"  Q.  What  did  he  say,  if  anything,  when  he  gave  it 
to  you? 

"  A.  I  should  use  it  if  we  were  attacked  by  the  po- 
licemen just  as  it  happened  at  this  time. 

"•  Q.     Tell  what  Fischer  said? 

"  A.  He  gave  us  those  bombs  which  we  should  use 
on  Market  square;  there  was  a  meeting  on  Market  square. 

"  Q.     What  did  Fischer  say? 

"A.  He  said  nothing,  but  simply  this,  that  we  should 
use  it. 

"  Q.  Where  were  you  when  Fischer  gave  you,  the 
bomb? 

"A.     In  Thalia  Hall  (636  Milwaukee  avenue }» 

"  Q.     Who  were  present  at  Thalia  Hall? 

"  A.  Mostly  members  of  the  north-west  side  group- 
and  several  men  of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein. 

"  Q.  (Page  101.)  What  became  of  the  bomb  which, 
you  had? 


99 

"  A.  I  gave  it  to  a  member  of  the — I  don't  know 
how  that  society  was  rendered  here.  I  had  it  with  me 
two  weeks  in  my  house. 

"  Q.  Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  what  be- 
came of  it? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     What? 

"  A.  He  had  it  exploded  in  the  woods  in  a  hollow 
tree." 

BERNHARD  SCHRADE  testified  (I.,  155)  that  he  was  a, 
member  of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein;  that  his  company 
•was  in  tke  habit  of  drilling  once  a  week  in  Thalia  Hall; 
the  members  of  the  company  each  had  a  number;  wit- 
ness' number  was  thirty-two;  he  knew  four  companies  of 
that  organization  in  the  city. 

WILLIAM  SELIGER  testified  (I,  505): 

*  #  *  *  *  #  * 

"  Q.  Look  at  the  paper  which  I  now  show  you,  '  Y,' 
and  the,  sentence  '  Komme  Montag  abend  ' — -what  does 
that  mean,  if  you  know?  ; 

"  A.  It  is  the  meaning  for  all  the  armed  men  to  come 
to  the. meeting,  at  54.  Lake  street*  .,•-..  , 

"  Q.     What  do  you  mean  by  armed  men? 
\  :"•  A.     That  they  might   be  informed   there  about  mat- 
ters that  were  to  be  talked  about. 

V:^<  The  COURT:     The  question  is,  who  were  the  armed 
men? 

"A.      There    were   divers   ones,    all  of  the    socialistic 

organizations,'1'' 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

"  Q.      The  question  /s,  who  were  the  armed  men? 

"  A.  They  were  divers  ones;  all  of  the  socialistic 
organizations. 

"  Q.      Why  were  they  called  armed  men  ? 

"  A.  Because  there  were  several  organizations  in  ex- 
istence which  were  drilled  in  the  use  of  arms" 

He  further  said  (page  527)  that  he  was  a  member  of 
the  north  side  group  of  the  International  Workingmen's 


IOO 

Association;  was  financial  secretary;  that  his  number 
was  seventy-two;  that  the  members  had  been  known  by 
numbers  for  two  years.  *  *  * 

"  Q.  (Page  529.)  Did  you  ever  see  any  bombs  at 
any  other  place  than  your  own  house  that  Tuesday  night? 

"  A.     Yes,  two. 

fci  Q.     Where  did  you  see  them? 

"  A.     At  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung. 

"  Q.     When  did  you  see  them  there? 

"  A.     Last  year,  at  the  time  of  the  car-drivers^  strike. 

"  Q.     Who  was  present  when  you  saw  those  bombs? 

"  A.  That  I  don't  know  any  more,  precisely  who 
were  present. 

"  Q.     Who  showed  them  to  you? 

"  A.  They  were  not  shown  to  me,  but  Rau  showed 
them  to  some  one. 

"  Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  any  of  the  defend- 
ants were  present  at  that  time? 

"  A.     Yes,  Spies  was  -present. 

"  Q.     Was  that  in  the  day-time  or  night-time? 

"  A.     //  -was  at  night,  in  the  evening. 

"  Q.  Had  you  seen  bombs  at  any  other  time  than 
that? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.     How  many  bombs  did  you  see  at  that  time? 

"  A.     Two. 

"  Q.  What  kind  of  bombs  were  they — were  they 
round  or  long? 

"  A.  There  was  one  round  bomb  and  one  long  one — not 
very  long. 

"  Q.  What  were  you  doing  at  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung 
at  that  time? 

"A.     /  ivas  a  delegate  from  the  north  side  group  ^ 

"  Q.     A  delegate  to  what? 

tfc  A.  There  were  delegates  meeting  there  every  two- 
weeks,  at  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  of  all  the  groups. 

"Q.     What  do  you  call  that  body  of  delegates? 

"  A.      The  general  committee. 

"Q.     Of  what? 

"  A.  The  general  committee  of  all  tJie  groups  of  Chi- 
cago" 


101 

(Page  531.)  The  witness  says  that  the  north  side 
group  was  in  the  habit  of  meeting  every  week — Mondays 
— in  the  evenings;  that  there  were  speeches  made  at 
these  meetings,  or  a  review  of  what  had  happened  during 
the  week;  that  on  Sundays  the  members  drilled  with  rifles; 
that  each  man  kept  his  rifle  at  his  own  home.  The  wit- 
ness had  one  which  he  kept  in  his  dwelling. 

On  cross-examination  (page  562),  the  witness  says  that 
he  saw  the  bombs  in  the  building  of  the  Arbeiter  Zei- 
tung  in  1885;  didn't  see  whether  they  were  loaded  or  not; 
they  were  in  a  room  -where  the  delegates  of  the  socialistic 
organizations  meet;  that  those  organizations  had  met  in 
that  room  as  long  as  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  ivas  in  existence; 
it  was  a  library  room  that  belonged  to  the  International 
Workingmen's  Society;  they  were  below  the  counter; 

that  Rau  showed  them  to   others   and  witness  saw  them. 

###### 

(Vol.  I,  509.) 

"  Q.  Who  cast  those  bombs,  if  you  know? 

"  A.  JLingg  was  casting  them  once  by  himself. 

"  Q.  Where  did  he  cast  them? 

"  A.  In  the  rear  room  upon  my  stove. 

"  Q.  When  was  it  that  you  saw  him  casting  the 
bomb? 

"  A.  Probably  six  -weeks  previous  to  the  4th  of  May. 

"  Q.  Where  was  the  first  bomb  that  you  ever  saw? 

"  A.  In  Lingg's  room. 

"  Q.  When  was  that? 

"  A.  That  was  still  before  that;  that  I  cannot  tell  ex- 
actly, but  it  was  more  than  six  weeks. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  Lingg  at  that  time 
about  the  bombs  or  their  object? 

"  A.  No  conversation  I  had  with  him,  but  he  to?d  me 

he  was  going  to  make  bombs. 

"  Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  dynamite? 

«*  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Where  did  you  see  that  first£ 

**•  A.  In  Lingg's  room- 


IO2 

«Q.     When. 

"A.     About  five  or  six  weeks  back  from  the  ^.th  of  May. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  him  about  that 
dynamite? 

"  A.     Yes;  he  told  me  that  he  had  some  dynamite. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  him  about  the  ob- 
jects of  that  dynamite? 

"  A.  Well,  he  said  that  every  workingman  should  have 
some  dynamite,  and  that  there  should  be  considerable  agita- 
tion', that  every  workingman  should  learn  to  use — to  handle 
these  things" 

.    Mrs.  BERTHA  SELIGER  testified  (Vol.  I,  571): 

"  Q.     Did  you  ever  see  any  bombs  in  your  house? 
,    "  A.     Shortly  before  May,  I  saw  some,  as  he  (Lingg) 
was  about  to  hide  them. 

"  Q.     Where  did  you  see  them? 

'    "  A.     There  were  about  half  a  dozen   lying  in  the  bed 
which  he  wanted  to  hide. 

"  Q.     What  kind  of  bombs  were  they? 

"A.     They  were  round  bombs  and  long  ones. 
(Witness  was  shown  gas-pipe  and  Ezar  bombs.) 

"  .Q.     Did  they  look  like  these  (indicating)? 

"  A.     Yes.  .* 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  him  about  those 
bombs? 

"  A.  -  Np;  not   at  all.     I   had    only  heard    it   said   that 
these  were  bombs.     I  had  never  seen  anything  like   that 
before. 
'  nj.Q<     When  did  you  next  see  any  bombs? 

"A.  I  didn't  see  any  more  next  to  the  Wednesday 
previous  to  the  time  when  he  wanted  to  hide  them  in  that 
closet. 

*  *  *  #  %  * 

"  Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  one  making  bombs? 

"  A.  Lingg  frequently  made  bombs. 

"  Q.  What  kind  of  bombs? 

"  A.  I  always  saw  him  cast;  I  did  not  -pay  particular 
attention,  but  I  simply  saw  him  melt  lead  on  the  cooking" 
stove. 

"  Q.  The  cooking  stove  in  your  house? 

"  A.  Yes. 


103 

'•  Q.  How  many  times  have  you  seen  him  melting 
lead  on  the  cooking  stove  in  your  house? 

"  A.  Twice.  Heumann  was  with  him,  once  my  hus- 
band and  Thielen  and  frequently  he  was  by  himself;  he 
said  to  us,  <  Don't  act  so  foolishly,  you  might  do  some- 
thing too.'  We  were  standing  looking  at  him. 

GUSTAV  LEHMAN,  a  carpenter,  born  in  Prussia,  who 
had  lived  in  this  country  for  four  years,  testified  (Vol. 
J,  204,)  that  for  three  months  he  was  a  member  of  the, 
north-  side  group  which  met  at  54  Clybourn  avenue, 
at  Nepf's  Hall;  that  they  met  on  Monday  evenings  of 
each  week,  where  they  talked  together  and  advised  to- 
gether and  reviewed  what  had  happened,  and  drilled  with 
hunting  guns  and  shot  guns  which  they  kept  at  their  homes. 
The  witness  testified  (page  205)  that  he  attended  a  dance 
at  Florus'  Hall  on  Lake  street,  in  the  month  of  March, 
1886,  gotten  up  by  the  carpenters'  union,  at  which  Lingg, 
one  of  the  defendants,  was  present;  that  there  was  a  profit 
of  ten  dollars  from  beer  sold. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  anything  done  with  the  money? 

"  A.  //  was  turned  over  to  the  armed  section  of  the 
carpenters'1  union. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  about  what  it  was  to  be  used 
for? 

"  A.  There  were  to  be  some  shooting  practices,  and 
the  targets  and  lead  and  so  forth  were  to  be  bought 
for  it. 

"  Q.     What  else,  if  anything? 

"  A.  At  the  next  meeting  several  came  together  and  it 
was  resolved  that  dynamite  should  he  bought  for  it  and  we 
should  practice  rvith  that  once. 

"  Q.  Where  was  the  meeting  held  at  which  that  resolu- 
tion was  passed? 

"A.     71  West  Lake  street. 

"  Q.     At  whose  place? 

«  A.     At  Florus'  Hall. 

"  Q.     Is  it  a  beer  saloon? 

"  A.     Yes. 


104 

"  Q.     Is  there  a  hall  overhead? 
"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.      Was  Lingg  present  at  that  meeting? 

"  A.     Tcs. 

"  Q.     What  was  done  with  the  money? 

"  A.  //  was  unanimously  resolved  tl.at  we  were  to  buy 
dynamite  with  it,  and  to  experiment  with  it  to  find  out  how 
it  was  used — how  it  was  handled, 

"  Q.     What  became  of  the  money? 

"  A.  We  were  unanimous  that  some  one  should  take  the 
thing  in  hand  and  Lingg  was  entrusted  with  it,  and  he 
took  the  money  and  boiight  dynamite  with  it. 

"  Q.     When  was  that,  as  nearly  as  you  can   place   it? 

"  A.  About  two  weeks  after  the  dance  where  the 
money  was  raised.  *  *  * 

"  Q.  (Page  210.)  You  went  to  54.  Lake  street  because 
you  saw  '  Y — come  Monday  night  J  did  you? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  Was  that  the  understanding  before  of  the  manner 
in  which  meetings  were  called? 

«  A.      Yes. 

"  Q.  How  many  times  have  you  seen  that  notice  be- 
fore in  the  'letter-box'  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung? 

"  A.     Only  once,  before  that  time. 

"  Q.  You  understood  tthat  whenever  a  meeting  was 
to  be  called  of  the  armed  section  at  54  West  .Lake  street 
it  would  appear  in  the  'letter-box'  in  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung,  did  you,  in  this  form  ? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     How  long  had  you  understood  this? 

•"  A.  I  do  not  know  how  long  before  that;  some  one 
came  to  the  carpenters'  meeting  and  announced  that  fact 
to  us. 

"  Q.     When? 

"  A.      At  the  time  of  the  meeting. 

"  Q.  How  long  did  you  belong  to  this  armed  section? 
'  •*'  A.  I  think  three  or  four  months,  something  like  that. 

"  Q.  Was  it  soon  after  you  joined  that  you  received 
notice  of  the  manner  of  the  calling  of  the  meetings  of 
the  armed  section  ? 

"  A.  It  was  some  time  after;  two  months  might  have 
passed  before  it  was  announced. 


"  Q.  How  often  did  the  armed  sections  meet  at  54.  West 
Lake  street? 

"  A.      That  zvas  irregular. 

"  Q.  Your  meetings  of  the  armed  sections  were  gov- 
erned by  this  notice  in  the  Ar  better  Zeitung,  were  they  not? 

«  A.     Tes. 

The  detective  Johnson  testified  (J,  405):  That  on  Mon- 
day? the  24th  of  August,  1885,  he  attended  a  meeting  of 
the  American  group  at  54  West  Lake  street,  at  which 
Fielden,  Parsons,  Walters,  Bodendecker,  Boyd,  Larson, 
Parker,  Frankling,  Snyder,  and  in  all  some  twenty  or 
thirty  were  present. 

"  Q.     Now,  you  may  state  what  occurred  there? 

"  A.  After  having  been  there  a  short  time,  a  man 
armed  with  a  long  cavalry  sword,  and  dressed  in  a  blue 
blouse,  wearing  a  slouch  hat,  came  into  the  room;  he 
ordered  all  those  present  to  fall  in;  he  then  called  off  cer- 
tain names,  and  all  those  present  answered  to  the  names.  He 
then  inquired  whether  there  were  any  new  members  who 
wished  to  join  the  military  company.  Some  one  replied 
that  there  was.  He  then  said,  '  Whoever  wishes  to  join, 
step  to  the  front.'  We  were  asked  separately  to  give 
our  names.  I  gave  my  name,  which  was  put  down  in  a 
book,  and  I  was  then  told  that  my  number  was  16.  Pre- 
vious to  my  name  being"  put  down  in  the  book,  the  man  to 
whom  I  was  speaking  asked  whether  there  was  any  one 
present  who  knew  me,  or  -whether  any  one  could  vouch  for 
me  being  a  true  man;  the  defendant  Parsons  and  a  man 
named  Bodendecker  spoke  up  and  said  that  they  would 
vouch  for  me.  The  other  two  were  asked  their  names  in 
turn;  as  they  were  properly  vouched  for  in  a  similar  man- 
ner, their  names  were  entered  in  a  book  and  they  were 
given  numbers.  The  man  whom  I  have  previously  spoken 
of,  who  came  into  the  room  armed  with  a  sword,  then 
inquired  of  two  other  men  who  were  in  the  room  whether 
they  were  members  of  .the  American  group;  they  both 
said  they  were,  and  he  asked  to  see  their  cards;  as  they 
were  unable  to  produce  their  cards,  he  told  them  to  leave 
the  room.  There  was  also  two  others  expelled  from  the 


io6 

• 

room,  the  doors  -were  closed,  and  the  remainder  was  asked  to 
fall  in  line.  And  we  were  then  drilled  for  about  half  an 
hour  or  three-quarters,  put  through  the  regular  manual 
drill,  marching,  countermarching,  turning,  forming  fours 
and  wheeling,  and  so  forth. 

"Q.     Who  drilled  yon? 

"  A.  The  man  that  I  have  spoken  of,  who  came  in 
armed  with  a  sword.  He  was  evidently  a  German.  I 
did. not  ascertain  his  name.  At  the  expiration  of  that  time 
the  drilling  inspector  stated  that  he  would  now  introduce 
some  of  the  members  of  the  first  company  of  the  German 
organization.  Pie  went  outside,  and  in  a  few  minutes  he 
returned,  accompanied  with  ten  other  men,  dressed  as  he  him- 
self was,  and  each  one  armed  with  a  Springfield  rifie. 
When  they  all  got  into  the  room  he  placed  them  in  line 
in  front  of  us,  and  introduced  them  as  members  of  the 
first  company  of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein,  and  said  that 
he  was  going  to  drill  them  a  little  while  to  let  us  see  how 
far  they  had  got  with  their  drill.  He  proceeded  to  drill 
them  for  about  ten  minutes;  put  them  through  the  regu- 
lar musketry  drill.  At  the  end  of  that  time  a  man  whose 
name  I  do  not  know — he  is  employed  for  the  proprietor  of 
the  salmon  54  West  Lake  street — 

"  Q.     He  was  there? 

"A.  Yes,  he  was  there;  he  came  into  the  room  with 
two  tin  boxes,  which  he  placed  on  the  table  at  the  south 
end  of  the  room.  The  drill-instructor  then  asked  those 
present  to  step  up  and  examine  the  two  tin  boxes,  as  they 
were  the  latest  improved  dynamite  bombs.  I  stepped  to  the 
front  with  the  others  and  examined  the  two  tins.  They 
were — they  had  the  appearance — 

"  Q.  Just  describe  them  as  near  as  you  can,  Mr.  John- 
son, now. 

A.  They  were  about  the  size  and  had  the  appearance  oj 
ordinary  preserve  fruit  cans.  The  top  part  unscrewed 
and  the  inside  of  the  cans  were  filled  with  a  light-brown 
mixture.  There  was  also  a  small  glass  tube  inserted  in 
the  center  of  the  can.  The  tube  was  in  connection  with 
the  screw,  and  it  was  explained  where  the  can  was  thrown 
against  any  hard  substance  it  would  explode. 

"  Q.  What  was  the  color?  Was  that  mixture  a 
liquid  ? 


icy 

"  A.     Inside  of  the  glass  tube  was  a  liquid. 

"  Q.      Was  there  anything  around  that  glass  tube? 

"A.     Yes,  sir;  it  was  a  brownish  mixture. 

"  Q.     Was  that  a  liquid? 

"  A.  No,  sir.  *  *  *  It  looked  more 

like  fine  sawdust.  The  drill-in- 

structor first  told  everybody  present  that  they  ought  to 
be  very  carefnl  as  to  ivho  we  selected  as  to  new  members  of 
the  company,  as,  unless  we  was  very  careful,  there  was  no 
telling  who  might  get  into  their  midst — our  midst.  The 
next  proceeding  of  the  meeting  was  to  select  officers;  a 
man  named  Walters  was  chosen  as  captain,  and  the  de- 
fendant Parsons  was  chosen  for  lieutenant. 

"  Mr.  FOSTER:  This  was  the  next  night? 

"A.  No,  sir;  that  was  the  same  night.  Some  discus- 
sion arose  as  to  what  the  company  should  be  called.  It 
was  decided,  eventually,  that  we  should  be  called  the  In- 
ternational Rifles.  The  drill-instructor  then  suggested 
that  we  ought  to  choose  some  other  hall,  as  we  were  not 
quite  safe  there.  He  added:  'We  have  a  fine  place  at 
636  Milwaukee  avenue;  we  have  a  shooting-range  in  the 
basement,  where  we  practice  shooting  regularly.'  Par- 
sons then  inquired  as  to  whether  it  was  not  possible  for 
us  to  rent  the  same  place.  The  drill-instructor  then  in- 
formed him  that  he  did  not  know.  The  question  of  rent- 
ing another  hall  was  finally  put  oft'  until  some  other  time, 
and  our  other  meeting  was  then  fixed  until  the  following 

Monday. 

*  ***** 

"  Q.     Who  drilled  in  your  company  that  night? 

"  A.     The  German  before  spoken  of. 

"  Q.  Well,  he  drilled  you,  but  who  were  in  the  com- 
pany drilling?  Was  Parsons  there,  and  Fielden,  drilling? 

"  A.     Parsons  and  Fielden. 

"  Q.     They  joined  the  company  also  that  night? 

"  A.  No.  I  understand  the}'  had  joined  previously. 
I  was  not  there  on  the  first  night.  *  *  *  The 
next  meeting  was  on  the  following  Monday,  on  the  3ist 
of  August,  at  the  same  place.  Parsons  and  Fielden  were 

present,  and  a  number  of  others. 

*  *  .   *  *  *  * 

"  Capt.  Walters  drilled   us  for  about  one  hour  and  a 


108 

half.  Afterwards  a  consultation  was  held  among  all  the 
members  of  the  company  as  to  the  best  way  of  procuring 
arms.  Some  one  suggested  that  each  member  should 
pay  so  much  a  week  until  a  sufficient  amount  had  been 
raised  wherewith  to  purchase  a  rifle  for  each  member  of 
the  company.  The  defendant  Parsons  then  made  a  sug- 
gestion— he  spoke  as  follows:  'Look  here,  boys,  why 
can't  we  make  a  raid  some  night  on  the  militia  armory? 
There  are  only  two  or  three  men  on  guard  there  and  it  is 
easily  done.'  This  suggestion  seemed  to  be  favored  by 
the  other  members,  but  some  more  discussion  took  place 
and  it  was  finally  decided  to  put  the  matter  off  until  the 
nights  got  a  little  bit  longer." 

CHARLES  B.  PROUTY,  a  gunsmith  connected  with  the 
firm  of  E.  E.  Eaton  &  Co.,  testified  (Vol.  K,  572):  That 
sometime  in  the  fall  of  1885  Engel,  in  company  with  his 
wife,  called  at  his  store  "  and  made  some  inquiries  in  re- 
gard to  some  large  revolvers.  They  found  one  there  that 
seemed  to  be  satisfactory  and  obtained  the  price  of  it,  and 
wanted  to  know  what  they  could  furnish  a  quantity  for — 
they  didn't  know  just  how  many,  possibly  a  hundred, 
probably  two  hundred — and  wanted  to  take  that  one,  buy 
that  and  pay  for  it,  and  take  it  and  present  it  at  some 
meeting  of  some  society.  I  didn't  ask  them  who  or  wrhere. 
They  took  the  pistol  and  paid  for  it.  Probably  in  a  week 
or  two  they  returned  and  said  the  pistol  was  satisfactory 
and  wanted  to  know  if  I  could  get  them  a  lot.  I  told 
them  I  hadn't  any  in  the  store — that  was  a  sample.  I 
told  them  I  knew  where  there  was  a  lot  in  the  east  and  I 
would  write  to  know  if  I  could  get  them.  I  wrote  east 
and  found  the  lot  had  been  disposed  of,  and  was  unable  to 
get  them.  They  were  somewhat  disappointed,  and  said 
it  didn't  make  any  great  difference,  for  they  had  found 
something  else  for  a  little  less  money  that  would  answer 
the  purpose,  and  with  that  they  left  our  store.  * 


I  Op 

"  Q.  You  used  the  word  '  gun  ';  what  kind  of  a  gun 
in  your  testimony  here  in  your  talk  about  arms,  what 
were  they — pistols? 

"  A.  Large  revolvers;  something  about  seven-inch 
barrel. 

"  Q.     Any  price  designated? 

"  A.     Yes,  the  price  would  be  $5.50  apiece. 

"  Q.     What  caliber? 

"  A.  I  have  forgotten  the  caliber.  I  think  it  was  44 
or  45;  I  would  not  be  positive  which. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  them  about  any 
profit  to  be  derived  from  it  by  themselves? 

"A.  Yes;  I  told  them  the  price.  I  qnoted  them  as 
very  cheap,  and  they  ought  to  make  a  nice  profit  on  that. 
They  replied  that  they  did'nt  care  to  make  profits;  it  was 
for  a  society,  and  they  didn't  care  to  make  profits  on  it." 

WILLIAM  J.  REYNOLDS  testified  (Vol.  K,  576): 
That  he  was  in  the  gun  business  employed  with  D.  H. 
.Lambertson  &  Co.;  that  in  February  or  March, 
1886,  Parsons  called  at  his  store.  "  He  came  in  and  said 
"that  he  wanted  to  buy  a  quantity  of  revolvers.  He 
"  mentioned,  I  think,  forty  or  fifty.  I  showed  him  the 
"  samples  we  had,  but  he  wanted  what  is  called  an  old 
"  remodeled  Remington  revolver,  44  or  45  caliber.  I 
"  agreed  to  write  and  get  a  quotation  on  the  revolver,  and 
"if  he  would  come  in  in  a  few  days  I  would  give  him  the 
"price.  I  did  so,  and  became  in  in  my  absence.  Then 
"  he  came  in  again,  and  I  quoted  him  a  price  on  it.  He 
"  did  not  purchase  any  revolvers,  and  was  in  once  or 
"  twice  after  that.  He  seemed  undecided  about  it." 

MARTIN  QUINN,  a  policeman,  testified  (Vol.  K, 
414):  That  three  or  four  days  after  the  Haymarket 
massacre  he  went  to  Engel's  house  and  searched  his 
house;  that  he  told  Engel  that  he  had  come  there  to  look 
around  his  premises,  having  been  informed  there  were 


no 

combustible  materials — bombs  and  so  forth — there; 
whereupon  Engel  told  him  that  the  macJiine  (photo- 
graphs of  which  appear  in  the  record  as  People's  Exhibits 
133  and  134)  was  brought  there  by  some  man  four  or  jive 
months  previous  to  that  time,  and  Engel's  wife  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Engel  described  the  appearance  of  the  man 
whom  she  said  had  left  the  machine  in  the  basement  door. 
"  I  (Quinn)  didn't  know  what  the  machine  was,  but 
"  Mr.  Engel  said  that  he  thought  it  was  made  for  the  pur- 
"  pose  of  making  bombs,  and  that  there  was  a  meeting.  1 
"asked  him  how  he  knew  that;  he  said  there  was  a  meet- 
"  ing  at  one  time  at  Turner  Hall  where  it  was  said,  inti- 
"  mated  he  saw  this  man  there,  and  the  next  thing  was  this 
"  machine  was  brought  over. 

"  Q.     What  did  he  say  about  the  man  at  Turner  Hall? 

"  A.  He  said  he  made  a  speech  there,  talked  about 
the  manufacture  of  bombs,  and  Mr.  Engel  told  me  that  he 
said  he  would  not  allow  him  to  make  any  bombs  in  his 
place  in  his  basement.  So  the  man  went  away.  He 
said  he  didn't  know  where  he  was." 

"  Engel  was  taken  to  the  Central  station,  where  he  had 
a  conversation  with  John  Bon  field,  who  testifies:  "  I  don't 
remember  the  exact  language  of  the  conversation,  but 
the  substance  of  it  was,  I  asked  him  what  this  thing  was 
made  for;  he  said  he  didn't  know.  I  asked  him  who 
made  it;  that  he  didn't  know.  He  said  it  was  brought 
there  some  months  before;  five  or  six,  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection,  and  left  at  his  door.  I  think  he  said  his  base- 
ment door,  by  some  party  unknown  to  him." 

JOHN  BONFIEI.D  describes  the  machine  as  a  blast  fur- 
nace in  miniature,  a  home-made  one.  (Vol.  K,  421): 

"  I  can  describe  it.  This  upright  part  could  be  lined 
with  fireclay.  This  shoulder  you  see  at  the  bottom  here, 
some  two  inches  and  a  half  from  that,  could  be  filled  in 
around  with  clay,  leaving  the  holes  here  open.  This  in 
a  blasting  furnace  would  be  known  as  the  tuyere.  It  is 


Ill 

filled  up  to  a  considerable  height  with  clay  to  protect  it 
from  the  hot  fire  inside,  and  the  blast  is  applied  to  those 
pipes,  one  or  both  of  them,  as  maybe  necessary.  By 
blast  I  mean  a  pressure  of  air.  In  a  blast  furnace  where 
they  use  hot  air  or  cold  air — -the  same  purpose.  When 
the  fire  is  extinguished  or  removed,  the  debris  or  slag 
that  comes  from  the  metaJ,  and  the  acid  or  cinders  from 
the  material  used  for  fuel  can  be  taken  out.  That  is 
wheie  the  melted  metal,  after  the  metal  or  combination, 
whichever  it  may  be,  would  be  in  a  melted  state,  passes 
off.  This  (indicating)  is  stopped  with  a  plug  of  clay, 
and  when  it  is  melted,  the  material  melted,  that  plug  can 
be  removed  and  the  metal  poured  through  that  tube  (indi- 
cating)." 

Bonfield  testified  further,  that  according  to  his  judg- 
ment as  an  expert  the  machine  had  never  been  used. 

Following  Bonfield  was  a  witness  named  Louis  MEH- 
LENDORF.  He  testified  (Vol.  K,  427)  that  he  was  a 
tinner;  his  place  of  business  was  No.  149  Milwaukee  ave- 
nue, where  he  had  been  engaged  for  two  years;  that  he 
knew  Engel;  that  he  made  -part  of  the  machine  referred 
to  in  the  testimony  of  the  last  two  witnesses  and  made  it  for 
Engel  about  a  year  previous  to  the  trial;  that  another  man 
was  with  Engel  at  the  time  he  ordered  it. 

We  call  attention  again  to  the  testimony  of  the  reporter 
Wilkinson  (I,  142): 

"  At  that  time  he  (Spies)  showed  me  this  for  producing 
the  bomb  known  as  the  (Czar  bomb),  and  I  took  it  away 
with  me.  He  described  it  as  the  Czar  bomb,  and  went 
on  to  describe  the  wonderful  destructive  power  of  the 
Czar  bomb.  Said  it  was  the  same  kind  that  had  been 
used  by  the  nihilists  in  destroying  the  Czar.  That  was 
the  reason  that  this  was  so  called.  I  asked  him  if  he 
made  these  things  at  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office,  besides 
printing  a  newspaper  and  doing  jobwork;  if  that  was 
any  part  of  their  business,  and  he  said  no,  that  they  were 
made  by  other  persons,  and  that  there  were  several  thou- 


112 

sand  of  them  in  Chicago  distributed,  and  that  sometimes 
they  were  distributed  through  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung 
office;  that  those  who  could  make  bombs  made  more 
than  they  could  use,  and  those  who  could  not  make  them 
got  them  from  those  who  could;  that  he  had  a  few  there 
for  samples,  and  that  that  was  one  of  the  samples."  (Ill, 
C,6). 

THEODORE  FRICKE  (1,471): 

"  Did  these  groups  have  any  separate  organization — a 
central  committee  or  anything'  of  that  sort? 

"  A.      Yes,  sir;  besides  this  north-west  side  group. 

"  Q.     All  except  the  north-west  side  group  ? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.      Where  did  the  central  committee  meet  f 

"  A.     707  Fifth  avenue. 

"  Q.     Is  that  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  building  ? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     You  say  the  north-west  side  group  did  not  have 
any  member  of  that  committee  ? 
-     "  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     Do  you  know  why  not  ? 

"  A.     Well,  they  had  other  principle. 

"  Q.     Well,  what  principle  ?. 

"  A.     Strong  anarchistic." 

In  this  connection  we  desire  to  call  the  attention  to  the 
testimony  of  the  defendant,  Spies  himself  (N,  78): 

"  Q.  How  many  bombs  did  you  have  in  the  office  of 
the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  ? 

"  A.  I  think  there  were  four  of  those  shells,  that 
looked  like  that,  and  I  think  two  others.  They  ivere  iron 
cast  and  given  to  me  by  a  -person,  1  believe  his  name  was 

,  or  Sc/iTvecp,  -zvho  left  for  New  Zealand. 
Q.     Which  did  you  get  first,  these  or  the  iron  ones  ? 

"  A.     The  iron  ones  first. 

"  Q.     From  whom  did  you  receive  the  iron  ones  ? 

"  A.     I  told  you. 

"  Q.     What  was  his  name  ? 

"  A.  I  think  his  name  was  Schvvape,  or  Sweet,  or 
something  like  that. 


"3 

"  Q.     Where  did  he  come  from  ? 

"  A.     He  came  from   Cleveland,  if  I  am  not  mistaken. 

"  Q.  Do  you  know  what  his  business  was  in  Cleve- 
land ? 

"  A.  I  think  the  man  was  a  shoemaker.  I  have  only 
seen  him  once;  he  passed  through  Chicago  and  came  up 
and  talked  with  me. 

"  Q.     When  was  that  ? 

"A.     I  suppose,  nearly  three  years  ago. 

"  Q.     How  did  he  come  to  leave  these  bombs  with  you? 

"  A.     I  suppose  he  thought — 

"  Q.  No  matter  what  he  thought;  what  was  said  or 
done? 

"  A.  He  came  up  to  the  office  and  asked  me  if  my  name 
•was  Spies.  I  told  him  yes,  as  far  as  I  can  remember.  He 
asked  me  if  1  had  seen  any  of  the  bombs  they  were  making' 
or  they  had^  or  something  like  that. 

"  Q.  Any  of  the  bombs  who  were  making,  or  that 
who  had? 

"  A.     That  they  had. 

"  Q.     Whom  did  he  mean  by  '  they'? 

"  A.     I  don't  know  whom  he  had  reference  to. 

"  Q.     Didn't  he  tell  you  whom  he  meant  by  them? 

"  A.  He  did  not;  he  Spoke  of  people  in  Cleveland 
•with  whom  he  had  associated. 

"  Q.     Did  he  tell  you  whom  these  people  were? 

"A.     I  did  not  ask  him. 

"  Q.     Or  the  class  of  people? 

"  A.     I  did  not  ask  him. 

"  Q.     Didn't  you  know  who  they  were? 

"  A.     I  did  not. 

"  Q.  He  simply  came  up  and  asked  you  if  you  had 
seen  any  of  those  bombs  that  they  were  making? 

"•A/  Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     What  did  you  say? 

"  A.     I  told  him  I  had  not. 

"  Q.     What  was  the  conversation  about  it  there? 

"  A.  I  cannot  recollect  the  conversation  I  had  with  a 
man  three  years  ago,  when  I  would  have  twelve  or  fifteen 
conversations  every  day. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  twelve  or  fifteen  conversations 
every  day  with  men  about  bombs  at  that  time? 


"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.  This  was  a  little  out  of  the  way  of  your  regular 
conversations? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir;  that  was  out  of  the  order. 

"  Q.  Can  you  give  any  of  the  rest  of  the  conversation 
that  took  place  at  that  time? 

"  A.  No,  sir;  if  I  remember  it  plainly,  clearly,  I  had 
very  little  time.  I  never  had  very  much  time,  and  got  rid 
of  him  just  as  soon  as  he  would  leave. 

"  Q.  Can  you  give  any  of  the  rest  of  the  conversa- 
tion ? 

"  A.  I  did  not  even  say  that  was  exactly  the  conversa- 
tion between  myself  and  him. 

"  Q.     How  did  he  come  to  give  you  the  bombs? 

"  A.  He  left  them  there;  he  said  he  would  not  take 
them  along. 

"  Q.     Did  he  have  any  more  with  him  at  that  time? 

"  A.     I  did  not  ask  him. 

"  Q.  Were  those  bombs  bombs  that  exploded  with  a 
cap  or  were  they  bombs  that  exploded  by  percussion? 

"  A.     They  exploded  by  percussion,  I  think. 

"  Q.  Heavier  on  one  side  than  they  were  on  the  other, 
were  they  not? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  So  that  when  they  were  thrown  the  cap  would 
always  come  down? 

"  A.     I  think  so. 

"  Q.     They  were  made  of  iron? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     How  long  ago  was  that? 

"  A.     About  three  years  ago. 

"  Q.  How  long  did  you  have  those  in  the  office  of  the 
Arbeiter  Zeitung? 

"  A.     I  think  they  were  there  on  the  4th  of  May. 

"  Q.     That  man  went  to  New  Zealand? 

"  A.  He  went  to  New  Zealand;  that  is,  he  said  he  was 
going  to  New  Zealand. 

"  Q.     You  never  saw  him  before  or  after  that? 

"  A.     I  never  saw  him  before  or  after  that. 

"  Q.  He  came  there  and  told  you  his  name  and  said  he 
was  from  Cleveland? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 


"5 

"  Q.  And  asked  you  if  you  •wanted  to  see  any  of  the 
bombs  that  they  were  making? 

"  A.     Something  to  that  effect. 

"  Q.     He  left  you  those  two  iron  bombs  ? 

"A.     Yes,  sir;  he  left  those  bombs. 

"  Q.     Both  of  them  were  percussion  bombs? 

"A.  Yes,  sir;  I  should  not  swear  to  that.  I  must  say 
I  never  paid  very  much  attention  to  them.  I  just  had 
them  there  and  I  put  them  aside.  I  have  shown  them  to 
a  good  many  persons  who  came  there,  reporters  and 
others. 

"  Q.     When  did  you  get  those  Czar  bombs? 

"  A.  I  never  got  these  Czar  bombs.  That  is  another 
invention  of  the  reporter.  I  never  had  anything  of  the 
kind.  These  bombs  -were  left  one  day,  I  believe,  with  the 
book-keeper  or  with  the  office-boy.  I  do  not  remember. 
When  I  came  back  from  dinner  they  were  lying  there 
on  my  desk,  and  I  asked  some  of  them  there  and  they 
said  a  man  had  been  to  inquire  whether  those  were  bombs 
of  a  good  construction,  and  the  man  never  called  for  them, 
and  I  told  the  reporter,  too,  by  the  way. 

"  Q.  When  was  it  the  man  left  the  bombs  there  and 
inquired  whether  they  were  bombs  of  good  construction 
or  not? 

"A.  I  think  that  was  about  a  year  and  a  half  or  two 
years  ago. 

"  Q.     How  long  did  you  have  them  there  in  the  office? 

"  A.     Ever  since. 

"  Q.     What  became  of  the  other  one? 

"  A.     I  supposed  that  was  at  the  office  at  the  time. 

"  Q.  Can  you  tell  what  became  of  the  two  iron  bombs, 
and  the  other  Czar  bomb? 

"  A.  I  cannot.  I  have  not  seen  them  for  some  time, 
but  I  thought  they  were  in  the  office. 

"  Q.  Was  the  other  bomb  that  was  left  in  your  of- 
fice similar  to  this? 

"  A.     Yes,  .sir. 

"  Q.     Did  it  have  a  detonating  cap? 

"A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     To  be  exploded  in  that  way? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir;  I  suppose  so. 

"  Q.     When  was  it  you  got  the  dynamite? 


n6 

"  A.     I  got  it  about  two  years  ago. 

"  Q.     From  whom  did  you  get  it? 

"  A.     From  the  y£tna  Powder  Company. 

"  Q.     How  much  did  you  get? 

"  A.     Two  of  these  bars. 

"  Q.     Why  did  you  get  the  dynamite? 

"  A.  I  got  that  dynamite  to  experiment  with  in  the 
first  place.  That  was  my  intention. 

"  Q.     Did  you  ever  experiment  with  it? 

"  A.     I  did  not. 

"  Q.     Why  did  you  want  to  experiment  with  it? 

"  A.     Oh,  I  thought— 

"  Q.  What  object  did  you  have  in  experimenting 
with  dynamite? 

"  A.  I  had  read  a  good  deal  about  dynamite  and  I 
thought  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  get  acquainted  with 
the  use  of  it. 

"  Q.  Why  would  it  be  a  good  thing  to  get  acquainted 
with  the  use  of  itr* 

"  A.     Well,  for  general  reasons. 

"  Q.  Could  you  not  get  acquainted  with  it  enough 
for  the  use  of  your  purposes  by  reading? 

"  A.  If  I  wanted  to  experiment  just  the  same  as  I 
would  take  a  revolver  and  go  out  and  practice  on  a  re- 
volver. 

"'  Q.     Was  that  your  only  reason? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     Merely  from  curiosity? 

"  A.  No,  1  would  not  say  it  was  merely  curiosity;  I 
don't  want  to  say  that  exactly. 

"  Q.  Then,  what  was  it,  if  it  was  not  merely  curi- 
osity ? 

"  A.     I  think  I  have  explained  sufficiently. 

"  Q.  Can  you  give  any  further  explanation  than  you 
have  given? 

"  A.     No,  I  could  not  say  that  I  could. 

"  Q.     Why  did  you  get  the  caps  and  fuse? 

"  A.  Simply  because  I  would  need  them  to  experi- 
ment with. 

"  Q.     Did  you  ever  experiment  with  them? 

"A.     I  did  not." 


(7.)     MOST'S  BOOK. 
(People's  Exhibit  15.) 

Most's  book  is  entitled  "  Science  of  Revolutionary 
War."  "  Manual  for  Instruction  in  the  Use  and  Prepa- 
ration of  Nitro-Glycerine,  and  Dynamite,  Gun-Cotton, 
Fulminating  Mercury,  Bombs,  Fuse,  Poisons,  Etc.,  Etc. 
By  Johann  Most.  New  York:  Printed  and  Published 
by  the  '  Internationale  Zeitungs  Verein  '  (International 
News  Company),  167  William  St." 

The  introduction  to  the  book  shows  its  purpose,  it  be- 
ginning as  follows: 

"  About  the  importance  which  the  modern  explosives 
have  attained  for  the  social  revolution  in  the  -present  and 
future,  nothing  need  be  said.  It  is  evident  that  in  the 
next  epoch  of  the  world's  history  they  will  form  a  decisive 
element, 

"  Nothing  is  more  natural,  therefore,  than  that  the  rev- 
olutionists of  all  countries  become  more  and  more  anxious 
to  obtain  them,  and  to  learn  the  art  of  applying  them 
practically. 

"  It  seems  to  us  as  if,  heretofore,  there  was  too  much 
time  and  money  wasted  in  a  wrong  direction. 

"  Many  procured  expensive  books,  etc. 

"  Some,  however,  may  have  profited  by  reading  such 
books,  especially  when  they  had  an  opportunity  to  con- 
sult experts. 

"  And,  as  there  is  no  harm  in  anything  you  learn,  the 
time  thus  employed  is  not  altogether  wasted. 

"  We,  and  others,  have  advanced  a  step,  and  have  en- 
deavored to  popularize,  through  men  of  experience,  the 
learned  treatises  contained  in  said  works  on  the  manufact- 
ure of  explosives;  we  soon,  however,  learned  that  also 
these  explanations  were  but  little  understood." 

He  then  goes  on  to  say  that  without  the  necessary  ex- 
perience the  manufacture  of  dynamite  or  gun-cotton  is 
difficult.  "  After  all  trouble  and  sacrifices,  those  fortunate 
"  ones  were  more  than  ever  convinced  that  they  had 


u8 

"  merely  a  theoretical  value.  With  small  quantities  of 
"  dynamite  there  is  damned  little  to  be  done,  and,  more- 
"  over,  it  is  much  too  expensive." 

He  then  advises  the  revolutionist  to  obtain  dynamite 
already  manufactured,  as  it  has  become  an  article  of 
commerce  easily  acquired.  "  Money  buys  everything, 
"  eyen  dynamite.  If  the  revolutionists  have  money  they 
"  will  be  able  to  get  dynamite.  *  *  *  We  intend,  in 
"  the  course  of  this  treatise,  for  the  sake  of  completeness 
"  of  the  theme,  to  publish  also  the  simplest  methods  of 
"  the  manufacture  of  explosives." 

The  book  then  describes  the  method  in  which  dyna- 
mite should  be  handled;  also  the  simplest  way  in  which 
it  may  be  exploded.  It  describes  scientifically  and  very 
clearly  the  different  methods  of  exploding  bombs,  giving 
the  preference  to  those  exploded  with  the  lighted  fuse. 
The  method  of  the  construction  of  bombs  is  described; 
upon  this  method  L,ingg  made  great  improvements,  as 
can  readily  be  seen  when  his  method  of  making  them  is 
considered.  On  pages  1 1  and  1 2  he  describes  the  making 
of  gaspipe  bombs — a  method  which  was  followed  in  the 
manufacture  of  the  gaspipe  bombs  introduced  in  evi- 
dence in  this  case.  He  says:  "  Those  hints  will  be 
"  sufficient  to  convince  eveiybody  beforehand  that  such 
"  missiles  may  be  easily  manufactured,  and  without  much 
"  expense  (the  main  thing  for  our  purpose),  and  that 
"  they,  if  used  against  a  big  crowd  (the  'respectable' 
"  rabble),  must  produce  a  brilliant  effect." 

The  book  then  describes  the  manufacture  of  bombs 
which  are  constructed  with  percussion  primers;  also 
describing  the  use  of  dynamite  in  large  operations,  such 
as  the  blowing  up  of  massive  buildings,  palaces,  churches, 
court  houses  and  so  forth,  and  describes  a  large  number 


up 

of  experiments  showing  the  destructive  force  of  dyna- 
mite and  in  what  way  it  should  be  applied  to  get  the  best 
results.  It  then  gives  descriptions  of  the  method  in  which 
dynamite  should  be  handled,  followed  by  a  method  by 
which  any  one  can  make  nitro-glycerine,  and  cautions  the 
reader  that  handling  these  substances  frequently  causes 
terrible  headaches,  especially  if  the  person  handling  them 
is  addicted  to  the  use  of  liquor.  The  manufacture  of 
gun-cotton  is  also  described  and  the  method  in  which  it 
can  be  used,  accompanied  by  a  description  of  the  effect  of 
nitro-gelatine  when  thrown  from  a  dynamite  gun. 

*'  As  regards  the  revolutionists,  they  of  course  are  not 
"  in  a  position  to  procure  dynamite  cannons  (uncouth 
"  things  of  about  forty  feet  long) ;  but  they  can  make 
"  bombs  of  the  above  description  which  may  either  be 
"  laid  or  thrown  from  slings  at  short  distances,  in  which 
"  case  the  old  (simple)  construction  of  sling-machines 
"  might  be  very  serviceable. 

"  What  tears  solid  rocks  into  splinters  may  not  have  a 
"  bad  effect  in  a  court  or  monopolists'  ball  room." 

The  manufacture  of  fulminate  of  mercury  is  then 
described.  "  A  particularly  effective  weapon  is  fire. 
"  Napoleon  I  has  experienced  this  in  Moscow.  The 
"  Prussians,  it  seems,  were  also  cognizant  of  it  when  in 
"  1870-1871,  in  France,  they  operated  with  petroleum, 
"  which  two  instances  we  note  of  the  thousands  of  others." 

"  In  the  list  of  revolutionary  war  utensils,  the  articles 
"  serviceable  for  incendiary  purposes  must  therefore  not 
"  be  omitted." 

The  book  then  describes  the  manufacture   of  different 

combustible  fluids,  some  of  which  burn  spontaneously. 

********* 
"If  some  of  this  fluid,  even  in  a  very  moderate  portion, 


I2O 

is  poured  on  rags,  or  other  combustible   material,  in  a 
short  time  it  catches  fire. 

"  If  you  add  petroleum  to  this  mixture,  then  the  com- 
bustion sets  in  slower.  The  more  petroleum  is  added  the 
less  rapid  the  combustion  takes  place.  This  fact  is  of 
great  value,  if  one  wants  time  to  get  away. 

"  A  further  explanation  in  regard  to  the  practical  use  of 
this  article  in  social  warfare  is  therefore  superfluous. 
'Everybody  can  find  out  himself  the  most  practical  way  to 
act.  Only  this  we  want  to  call  your  attention  to,  that 
clothes,  of  course,  burn  well.  In  this  regard  experiments 
were  made  in  France  with  detectives,  and  those  experi- 
ments have  warmed  them  up  pretty  lively. 

"  Another  incendiary  article  is  the  following: 

"  The  cover  of  a  fruit-jar  is  soldered  off  and  the  contents 
taken  out.  In  the  center  of  the  cover  a  hole  is  cut,  into 
which  a  medicine  glass  may  be  squeezed  afterwards  and 
then  the  cover  is  soldered  on  again.  Then  pour  benzine 
through  the  opening  so  that  two-thirds  of  the  can  is  filled. 
Meanwhile  the  medicine  glass  has  been  filled  with  gun- 
powder and  closed  with  a  stopper.  Through  this  stopper 
a  fuse  or  piece  of  touchwood  has  been  conducted.  When 
this  glass  is  squeezed  through  the  opening  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, the  fire-bomb  is  ready.  To  fit  the  medicine  glass 
very  tightly  it  may  be  wrapped  up  in  paper  or  rags. 

"  Light  the  fuse  or  touchwood  with  a  burning  cigar 
and  throw  the  bomb  into  the  place  to  be  destroyed  after 
you  have  ascertained  that  it  contains  combustible  material. 

"  In  the  moment  when  the  fuse  or  touchwood  is  burned 
down  to  the  powder,  the  latter  explodes,  at  the  same  time 
causing  the  explosion  of  the  benzine.  All  around  the 
burning  liquid  flies,  causing  destruction.  Firebrands  of 
this  kind  may,  of  course,  not  only  be  thrown,  but  also 
laid. 

"  Nobody  will  be  able  to  deny  that  a  hundred  men, 
equipped  with  several  such  simple  kindlers,  and  distrib- 
uted all  over  a  city,  will  at  the  moment  of  a  riot  be  able 
to  achieve  more  than  twenty  batteries  of  regular  artillery. 
And  the  thing  is  remarkably  easy  and  dirt  cheap." 

(This  description  corresponds  exactly  with  the  fire  cans 
introduced  in  evidence  in  the  case.) 


121 

"  Where,  in  the  warfare  against  the  property-owning 
beast  and  the  governing  rabble,  those  whose  removal  in 
the  interest  of  the  social  revolution  is  particularly  desirable 
cannot  well  be  singled  out  for  operation  with  blasting  and 
incendiary  material;  then,  for  good  or  evil,  shelter  must 
be  abandoned  and  the  life  of  one  or  more  revolutionists 
must  be  risked. 

"  In  mentioning  '  shelter  J  we  mean  what  we  say,  for 
the  idea  of  some  fools,  that  the  revolutionist  has  nothing 

*  n 

else  to  do  than  to  sacrifice  his  own  life  '  courageously,' 
where  only  the  self-preservation  of  others  come  into  ques- 
tion, is  downright  nonsense.  A  revolutionist  who  reck- 
lessly and  unnecessarily  endangers  his  own  life,  acts 
against  the  interest  of  the  revolutionary  cause. 

"  Aside  from  the  fact  that  the  terror  of  the  law  and 
order  lubber  is  a  hundred  times  greater  if  the  author  re- 
mains unknown  than  if  he  is  captured  or  has  perished  in 
the  deed,  the  principal  rule  of  all  militarv  tactics  is  not  to 
endanger  the  operating  men  more  than  necessary. 

"For  this  reason  two  or  three  ought  never  to  expose 
themselves  when  one  is  sufficient  to  accomplish  a  revolu- 
tionary deed.  He  ought  not  even  to  have  a  confederate. 
Is  a  revolutionist  obliged  to  do  a  deed  by  which  he  him- 
self may  become  a  victim,  as  no  other  means  to  destroy 
the  respective  enemy  exists,  he  ought  to  be  particularly 
careful  that  his  purpose  should  by  all  means  be  successful. 

"  This  remark  is  by  no  means  superfluous,  as  only  too 
many  comrades  have  already  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the 
enemy,  and  thus  perished  after  an  unsuccessful  operation. 

"  Dagger-thrusts  did  not  penetrate  deep  enough;  graz- 
ing shots  have  only  caused  slight  wounds,  not  to  speak  of 
total  failures  in  this  regard. 

"  The  same  precarious  accidents  led  to  the  idea  to  poison 
the  weapons  used  for  assaults;  but  as  yet  this  idea  has 
never  been  carried  out. 

"  The  reason  for  this  is  to  be  looked  for  in  the  difficulty 
to  obtain  the  suitable  poisons.  Or,  to  be  more  definite, 
the  poverty  of  the  revolutionists  is  the  cause  of  it. 

"  It  is  the  old  story — money  buys  everything.  It  is 
obvious  that  one  has  to  get  acquainted  with  physicians, 
druggists,  chemists  and  similar  people,  to  obtain  poisons 
from  them  either  by  persuasion  or  bribery. 


122 

"  Even  the  introduction  into  those  social  spheres,  and, 
moreover,  the  continuous  moving  in  them  is  connected 
with  expense  which  the  penniless  revolutionist  is  not  able 
to  defray. 

"  As,  however,  it  is  hoped  that  this  lack  of  money  will 
not  be  permanent,  and  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  revolu- 
tionist will  be  able  to  overcome  this  calamity  by  insti- 
gating proper  measures,  some  hints  in  regard  to  this  sub- 
ject are  not  out  of  place. 

"  The  best  of  all  substances  for  poisoning  arms  is  ctirari, 
with  which  the  South  American  Indian  rubs  his  arrows. 
This  poison,  which,  by  the  way,  leaves  no  visible  traces, 
kills  without  fail  as  soon  as  the  smallest  quantity  of  it 
comes  in  contact  with  a  man's  blood.  But  it  has  a  high 
price  in  the  market,  and  it  is  not  to  be  had  without  the 
intervention  of  a  physician,  druggist,  etc.  More  simple 
methods  are  the  following: 

"  After  a  dagger  is  made  red-hot  and  hardened  again 
in  a  decoction  of  rose-laurel,  the  least  little  cut  or  stab  is 
sufficient  to  produce  blood-poisoning  or  death. 

"  A  more  simple  method  is  to  mix  red  (pulverized) 
phosphor  with  thin  gum  arabic,  and  to  rub  with  this  mix- 
ture the  weapon  (dagger,  bullet,  etc.)  to  be  used. 

"  Verdigris,  which  every  one  can  easily  produce  by 
dipping  copper  or  brass  into  vinegar,  and  exposing  it  to  the 
atmosphere,  may  also  be  mixed  with  gum  arabic  and  ap- 
plied to  weapons.  In  the  two  last-mentioned  cases  the 
weapons  ought  to  be  grooved,  so  that  the  poison  will  re- 
main on  it  easier  and  in  larger  quantities. 

"The  best  of  all  poisons  is  ptomaine  (cadaver  poison), 
as  many  physicians,  who  have  been  engaged  in  dissecting 
dead  bodies,  have  proved  by  their  death.  But  also  this 
substance  cannot  be  obtained  without  the  intervention  of 
proper  persons. 

"  In  all  cases  where  poisoned  arms  are  used  they  must 
be  prepared  immediately  before  use,  as  the  atmosphere 
decomposes  the  respective  substances  gradually,  rendering 
them  more  or  less  harmless.  Prussic  acid,  which  has 
often  been  recommended  for  the  poisoning  of  arms,  de- 
composes particularly  quick,  and  on  account  of  that  is  not 
adapted  for  this  purpose. 

"  As  even  a  slight  wound  caused  by  a  poisoned  weapon. 


123 

may  be  sufficient  to  kill,  the  idea  was  conceived  to  oper- 
ate with  poisoned  bolts — by  means  of  air-guns,  blow-pipes 
and  similar  apparatuses — particularly  so  on  account  of  the 
noiselessness  with  which  the  work  can  be  done.  It  is, 
however,  to  be  surmised  that  in  most  cases  thick  clothing 
affords  protection  for  the  body  against  the  penetration  of 
those  missiles;  one  would  be  compelled  to  aim  it  at  the 
face  or  hand  in  order  to  be  successful,  but  in  such  case 
the  mark  may  be  easily  missed. 

"  Finally,  we  urgently  advise  everybody  who  wants  to 
operate  with  poisoned  weapons  to  acquaint  himself  with 
the  effect  of  the  poison  by  experimenting  on  animals. 
Practice  is  better  than  theory,  as  an  old  proverb  has  it. 

"  The  general  arming  of  the  people  has  become  the 
standing  topic.  But  it  cannot  be  treated,  universally  alike, 
and  it  is  not  desirable  that  it  should  be  done,  for  it  is  here 
as  with  a  good  many  other  things:  success  is  not  to  be 
achieved  by  one  definite  procedure,  but  by  the  thorough 
utilization  of  all  the  different  circumstances.  Finally,  the 
very  diversities  of  the  situation  are  in  the  way  of  a  stere- 
otype action  in  this  regard. 

"  It  would  probably  be  best  it  all  organized  working- 
men  of  the  civilized  world  might  be  induced  to  provide 
themselves  with  good  muskets  (according  to  a  system 
previously  agreed  upon)  and  a  corresponding  quantity  of 
ammunition,  to  undergo  a  thorough  military  drilling,  and 
thus  get  themselves  ready  for  the  coming  social  war. 

"  These,  of  course,  are  mere  wishes. 

*'  As  regards  Europe,  only  in  Switzerland  might  they 
be  able  to  proceed  thus  without  being  molested.  We  say 
*  might ' — for  one  can  easily  imagine  that  those  clan- 
nish and  overfed  burgher  princes-  would  soon  do  away 
with  the  right  of  the  universal  arming  of  the  people,  as 
soon  as  they  find  out  that  they  themselves  are  the  cause 
of  the  target  practice. 

"  In  all  other  European  countries  the  purchase  of  such 
arms  or  muskets  is  made  difficult  by  all  sorts  of  laws  and 
police  ordinances.  And  whoever  procures  them  secretly 
is,  if  detected,  exposed  to  the  danger  of  being  dragged  in 
a  proceeding  for  '  constructive  treason.' 

"  Only  the  more  cunning  ones  are,  therefore,  able,  in 
spite  of  all  those  obstacles,  to  provide  themselves  with 


124 

breech-loaders;    a    military    arming    of    the    proletarian 
masses  is  beyond  all  possibilities. 

"  In  America  it  is  at  present  a  little  different  yet. 
There  everybody  has  the  'constitutional'  right  and  the 
duty  to  arm  himself  as  he1  sees  fit,  but  the  lawgivers  and 
governing  classes  have,  for  a  considerable  time  already  done 
all  in  their  power  to  hinder  the  arming  of  the  people  and 
to  weaken  its  purposes.  So,  for  instance,  is  the  carrying 
of  concealed  weapons  prohibited  in  nearly  all  of  the  states; 
and  as  revolvers  and  daggers  are  carried  in  pockets,  this 
circumstance  makes  you  liable  fo  a  fine.  And  if  you 
would  carry  those  things  openly  in  your  belt,  they  soon 
would  make  laws  to  prevent  that,  or  the  extortioners 
would  soon  discharge  workingmen  thus  attired.  You  can, 
therefore,  only  carry  daggers  and  revolvers  in  contraven- 
tion of  the  law,  or  you  have  to  leave  them  at  home,  so 
that  in  the  moment  of  danger  you  will  probably  have  to 
be  without  them, 

"  But  that's  not  all.  Hardly  had  several  hundred  com- 
rades in  Chicago  founded  a  military  organization,  when 
the  legislative  scoundrels  of  the  State  of  Illinois  made  a  law 
by  which  only  such  military  organizations  are  tolerated  or 
allowed  to  march  which  regard  themselves  as  members  of 
the  militia  and  are  ready  to  swear  the  oath  of  allegiance.  A 
litigation,  continued  for  several  years  before  the  Supreme 
courts  against  this  utterly  unconsitutionallaw^  has  until  now 
been  without  any  result. 

"  There  is  even  a  tendency  noticeable  of  late  among  the 
legislative  bodies  of  America,  to  prohibit  the  best  of  all 
weapons,  dynamite,  except  for  industrial  purposes  and  na- 
tional defense.  Thus,  step  by  step,  the  arming  of  the 
people  is  opposed  by  the  governing  bandits.  What  does 
all  this  mean?  Perhaps  that  we  will  idly  look  on  and  re- 
frain also  in  America  from  a  regular  arming?  No,  indeed! 
We  point  with  fingers  at  the  disarming  of  the  people. 
We  see  things  develop  in  a  highly  reactionary  manner, 
and  are  convinced  that  the  workingmen  of  America  can- 
not arm  themselves  if  they  do  not  do  it  soon. 

"  If  they  hesitate  no  longer  and  supply  themselves  in 
time  with  the  best  weapons  obtainable,  the  disarming  of  the 
people  is  out  of  question,  simply  because  the  armed  prole- 
tariat would  not  stand  it,  but  if  the  indifference  is  con- 


125 

tinued  as  heretofore  it  may  soon  happen  that  the  obtain- 
ing of  arms  may  be  rendered  as  difficult  to  the  Amer- 
ican people  as  it  is  for  a  long  time  now  the  case  in  Eu- 
rope; then  no  amount  of  complaining  and  clamoring  will 
avail.  You  will  find  yourself  defenseless  and  powerless 
in  face  of  a  mob  of  murderers  in  uniform,  armed  to  the 
teeth. 

"  You  talk  about  arming,  but  always  one  looks  for  it 
to  the  other,  and  the  thing  does  not  progress.  Many  are 
of  the  opinion  that  as  long  as  the  societies  to  which  they 
belong  do  not  contemplate  arming,  they  themselves 
needn't.  One  or  the  other  buys  himself  a  watch — well, 
for  that  money  he  would  get  a  damned  fine  breech-loader. 
Away  with  all  lying  excuses! 

"  As  a  rule  we  do  not  take  much  stock  in  the  arming 
of  organized  bodies  as  such.  They  are  all  pigeon-coops, 
as  it  were.  Members  come  and  go,  influenced  by  circum- 
stances over  which  they  have  no  control,  or  even  their 
whims.  A  military  spirit  is  out  of  the  question  there. 
Besides5,  the  arming  of  such  a  corporate  body  would  be 
impossible  without  causing  great  pressure  upon  those  who 
are  unwilling  to  join.  But  that  would  not  only  be  a  violation 
of  the  anarchistic  principle,  but  also  dangerous  to  the  re- 
spective organizations,  as  it  would  imply  great  financial 
sacrifice  on  the  part  of  those  that  prefer  to  do  nothing 
for  this  cause. 

"  The  labor  organizations  should  therefore  content 
themselves  to  facilitate  the  purchase  of  guns  on  the  part 
of  those  who  have  resolved  to  arm  themselves.  Thev 
may  employ  their  capital  to  buy  guns  wholesale,  and  re- 
tail them  to  their  associates — if  necessary  on  the  install- 
ment plan — at  cost.  As  in  this  way  all  outlays  go  back 
to  the  treasury,  the  scheme  can  always  be  repeated  with- 
out endangering  the  assets' of  the  respective  society  or  its 
general  purposes.  Those  armed  may  form  special  sec- 
tions and  may  hold  their  exercises  however  they  want 
and  can. 

"  Speaking  of  the  purchase  of  muskets,  we  do  not  say 
that  this  is  the  only  desirable  and  possible  method  of  arm- 
ing. 

"  There  is  no  doubt  that,  at  the  outbreak  of  a  revolu- 
tion, it  is  essential  whether  at  the  first  moment  there  are 


126 

rifles  enough  in  the  hands  of  the  revolutionists  to  surprise 
the  enemy  with  bold  tactics,  to  spirit  away  his  principal 
leaders,  and  to  occupy  his  most  important  positions;  or 
whether  we  are  reduced  to  rely  to  plundering  of  arms 
(in  every  case  self-evident  and  unavoidable),  and  the  un- 
trustworthiness  of  the  enemies'  soldiers.  Be  this  as  it 
may,  there  are  other  weapons  which  we  consider  of  great 
value. 

"  Good  revolvers,  daggers,  poisons  and  firebrands  are 
destined  to  be  of  immense  service  during  a  revolution,  the 
more  so  because  those  which  have  such  things  about 
them  are  not  easily  found  out  or  shunned,  but  are  able  to 
hunt  the  enemy  in  his  hiding  places  and  do  away  with 
him  there. 

"  First  of  all,  the  modern  explosives  deserve  attention. 
Considerable  quantities  of  nitro-glycerine  and  dynamite, 
numerous  hand-grenades  and  blasting  cartridges — every 
one  of  them  things  -which  may  be  easily  concealed  under  the 
clothes — must  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  revolutionists,  if  they 
want  to  be  sure  of  success. 

"  Those  arms  are  apt  to  act  as  the  fighting  proletariat 
substitute  for  artillery,  and  to  create  surprise,  confusion 
and  panic  in  the  ranks  of  the  enemy.  It  is  to  be  endeav- 
ored, therefore,  to  keep  those  things  also  on  hand. 

"  All  the  last-mentioned  arms  are  particularly  recom- 
mendable  to  the  European  revolutionists  on  account  of 
their  unsuspicious  appearance.  They  cannot  buy  rifles 
under  the  prevailing  circumstances.  But  dynamite  they 
can  make  or  confiscate. 

"  Take  all  in  all,  our  motto  is :  Proletarians  of  all  coun- 
tries, arm  yourselves!  Arm  yourselves,  no  matter  -what 
may  happen;  the  hour  of  battle  draws  near. 

"  Who  in  these  days  comes  to  the  front  for  social 
revolution  and  anarchism  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
that  he  is  surrounded  by  enemies  from  all  sides,  who  at 
any  moment  might  find  opportunity  to  ruin  him.  His 
conduct  ought  to  be  regulated  according  to  that. 

"  If  a  revolutionist  wants  to  communicate  with  an 
associate  in  writing,  he  should  never  use  the  proper  ad- 
dress of  the  latter,  but  a  fictitious  one;  that  is  to  say,  the 
address  of  any  harmless  person,  who  has  previously  been 
made  acquainted  with  that  fact.  The  fictitious  addresses 


127 

ought  frequently  to  be  changed.  But  this  precaution 
alone  is  not  sufficient  to  entrust  to  the  paper  what  you 
would  whisper  in  the  presence  of  the  hearer  only.  The 
possibility  that  the  letter  might  fall  in  the  wrong  hands 
is  not  excluded;  its  contents  ought  to  be  shaped  with  a 
view  to  this  fact.  A  revolutionist  ought  never  to  men- 
tion the  true  name  of  his  confederates.  Certain  initials  or 
nicknames  are  preferable.  Things,  the  knowledge  of 
which  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  the  recipient  of  the 
letter,  must  never  be  communicated  in  writing,  no  matter 
how  intimate  you  are  with  the  correspondent,  especially 
not  if  such  communications,  when  found  out,  could  harm 
other  associates.  Everything  that  must  be  said  should 
be  expressed  «  sub  rosa  ' — in  the  style  of  business,  family 
or  love  letters — as  the  case  may  be.  Such  hints  will  be 
understood  by  all  who  are  not  extraordinarily  stupid. 
That  you  should  never  sign  your  right  name  is  self-evident. 

"  They  often  recommend  ciphers  for  important  cor- 
respondence, but  that  is  the  most  suspicious  method  of  all. 
Aside  from  the  fact  that  the  art  of  deciphering  has  been 
developed  wonderfully  of  late,  every  letter  in  cipher  is  in 
itself  an  object  of  suspicion,  which  stimulates  the  cunning 
of  the  blood-hounds  to  the  utmost.  If  you  use  ciphers  at 
all,  the  key  should  be  communicated  to  only  #«£  confeder- 
ate, for  if  you  divulge  it  to  all  your  secret  correspondents, 
the  secret  will  not  long  be  maintained. 

"  All  letters  received  which  bear  secrets  should  always 
be  burned  immediately  after  reading.  Revolutionists 
should  never  keep  things  in  their  own  dwelling  by  which 
they  or  others  might  be  laid  liable  to  suspicion.  But, 
wherever  this  cannot  be  avoided  for  a  few  hours,  or  over 
nignt,  you  must  never  lose  sight  of  the  possibility  that 
the  police  may  at  any  moment  come  down  upon  vou.  In 
other  words,  the  doors  have  to  be  well  closed.  And  if  the 
lavv-and-order  scoundrels  knock,  the  respective  objects 
have  to  be  destroyed  immediately,  so  that  the  burglars 
will  be  disappointed. 

'-  in  personal  intercourse  you  should  not  be  so  talkative 
as  it  is  generally  the  case.  No  communication  whatever 
ought  to  be  made,  which  is  not  unavoidably  necessary  in 
the  interest  of  the  cause;  and  neither  through  friendship, 
love,  or  family  ties  should  you  be  influenced  to  talk. 


128 

"  The  same  rules  apply  particularly  to  all  enterprises 
that  are  directed  against  the  prevailing  disorder  and  its 
laws. 

"  If  somebody  wants  to  execute  a  revolutionary  deed, 
he  should  not  speak  about  it  with  others,  but  should  go 
to  work  silently.  Only  if  one  or  two  others  are  indispens- 
able he  may  choose  them.  Of  course,  every  misstep  in 
that  direction  is  as  good  as  an  invitation  to  treason. 

"  Whoever  embarks  in  an  enterprise  of  that  kind 
ought  carefully  to  avoid  the  society  of  such  that  are  al- 
ready suspected  as  revolutionists.  He  would  in  such  a 
case  arouse  the  suspicions  of  the  spies  and  provoke  the 
police  to  exercise  a  watch  over  him.  He  would  soon 
then  be  made  harmless. 

"  At  the  moment  a  revolutionist  is  to  be  arrested,  self- 
composure  is  doubly  necessary. 

"  Only  when  there  is  a  possibility  to  annihilate  an  at- 
tacking party,  or  when  it  becomes  a  question  of  life  and 
death,  a  forcible  resistance,  or  death,  or  both,  is  advisable. 
But  if  you  are  sure  that  the  arrest  is  made  only  on  vague 
suspicion,  then  you  have — not  without  an  energetic  pro- 
test— to  submit  to  the  inevitable,  as  it  is  easier  in  such 
case  to  extricate  yourself  again. 

"To  examinations  on  the  part  of  a  judge,  a  revolution- 
ist should  only  submit  in  such  case,  and  so  far  as  he  is 
able  to  prove  an  alibi,  and  thereby  force  his  release.  The 
more  testimony  a  criminal  court  gets  out  of  a  revolutionist, 
the  greater  the  danger  for  him  to  be  ruined, 

"If,  then,  the  judicial  farce  commences,  the  revolution- 
ist admits  nothing  except  what  is  proven  against  him. 

"  Are  all  means  of  salvation  exhausted,  then  another, 
the  highest  duty  presents  itself:  the  prisoner  has  to  defend 
his  deeds  from  the  standpoint  of  the  revolutionist  and  an- 
archist, and  he  has  to  convert  the  defendant's  seat  into  a 
speaker's  stand.  Shield  your  person  as  long"  as  there  is  a 
possibility  to  preserve  it  for  further  deeds;  but  when  you 
see  that  you  are  irredeemably  lost,  then  use  the  short  respite 
to  make  the  most  of  it  for  the  propagation  of  your  prin- 
ciples. 

"  We  have  regarded  it  our  duty  to  give  you  these  in- 
structions, the  more  so,  as  we  see  from  day  to  day  how 
people,  who  are  experts  in  revolutionary  matters,  violate 


I29 

even  the  plainest  rules.     May  their  lives  be  the  last  which 
are  necessary  in  this  regard." 

The  book  contains  an  appendix  giving  another  method 
for  the  preparation  of  the  fulminate  of  mercury,  saying 
also: 

"  For  practical  application:  Stramonium  (devil's  ap- 
ple), which  is  found  everywhere,  on  heaps  of  rubbish,  in 
ditches,  in  gardens  as  weeds,  is,  to  be  sure,  a  shabby 
plant,  but  withal  very  useful.  For  the  seeds  of  the  same 
ma)'  be  used  exceedingly  humanely.  Pulverize  about 
twenty-five  of  these  kernels  (ripe,  black  ones,  of  course) ; 
bake  this  in  an  almond  cake,  or  other  dainty  cake,  and 
with  this  treat  a  spy,  an  informer,  a  minion  of  the  law,  or 
other  scoundrel.  You  will  soon  see  the  effect.  Already 
in  the  following  days  the  beast  will  become  crazy,  raving, 
and  kicks  the  bucket;  consequently  very  recommendable." 

Then  follows  a  description  of  invisible  ink,  which  is 
said  to  be  very  recommendable  for  revolutionary  corre- 
spondence, and  methods  of  cipher  writing,  and  a  descrip- 
tion of  an  explosive  known  as  "  Sprengel's  Acid  and 
Neutral  Explosives;"  then  come  directions  for  the  manu- 
facture of  prussic  acid. 

"  On  account  of  that  property  (its  volatility) 
the  prussic  acid  is  not  adapted  for  the  poisoning 
of  arms  and  missiles,  but  it  is  excellent  for  poi- 
soning beverages,  especially  liquors.  It  is  clear  and 
liquid  like  water,  smells  and  tastes  pungent  like  bitter  al- 
monds; it  decomposes  in  the  light,  but  in  the  dark  it  may 
be  preserved  for  a  long  time. 

"  If,  for  instance,  you  put  a  piece  of  wadding  contain- 
ing only  half  a  drop  of  prussic  acid  under  the  nose  or 
mouth  of  a  cat,  and  the  animal  licks  it,  it  will  die  within 
three  seconds. 

"  We  hope  soon  to  have  the  pleasure  to  state  what  a 
useful  effect  prussic  acid  has  on  extortioners  and  tyrants." 

Then  follow  directions  concerning  the  use  of  phosphor, 
dissolved  in  bisulphide  of  carbon,  a  combustible  which 


130 

generates  spontaneously.  ***-«<  After  the  whole 
is  placed  on  the  desired  spot,  lift  the  lid  so  that  air  may 
reach  the  fuse,  and  quietly  go  about  your  business.  The 
explosion  is  sure  and  the  perpetrator  safe." 

Capt.  SCHAACK  testified  (K,  507),  referring  to  Lingg: 

"  I  asked  him  who  learned  him  to  make  these  bombs — - 
dynamite — and  he  said  he  learned  it  in  books — scientific 
books  of  -warfare,  -published  by  Most,  of  Nciu  York.  I 
asked  him  where  he  got  his  dynamite.  He  said  he  got 
it  on  Lake  street,  somewhere  near  Dearborn." 

JAMES  BONFIELD  (I,  355)  testified: 

"  Fischer  was  up  in  the  office.  Among  other  things,  he 
was  asked  to  explain  how  he  came  by  the  fulminating  cap. 

"  Q.  That  was  a  fulminating  cap  similar  to  the  one 
you  have  there? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir;  it  was  found  in  his  pocket  at  the  time 
of  his  arrest.  He  said  he  got  it  from  a  socialist  who 
used  to  visit  Spies'  office  about  four  months  previous; 
that  he  handed  it  to  him  on  the  stairs,  the  foot  or  head  of 
the  stairs,  and  he  told  me  he  did  not  know  what  it  was, 
and  had  carried  it  in  his  pocket  for  four  months.  He  did 
not  know  what  use  there  was  for  it.  After  some  further 
conversation,  in  answer  to  some  questions  put  by  Mr. 
Furthmann,  he  acknowledged  that  he  knew  what  it  was, 
and  had  read  an  account  of  it  and  the  use  of  it  in  Herr 
Mosfs  book. 

"  Q.     In  Herr  Mosfs  Science  of  Warfare? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     At  what  place  was  that? 

"  A.     At  the  detective's  office. 

"  Q.  What  was  the  appearance  of  that  fulminating 
cap  as  to  whether  it  had  been  tarnished  or  whether  it 
was  bright? 

"  A.  //  looked  to  be  perfectly  nezu.  The  fulminate  was- 
fresh  or  bright  on  the  inside. 


IV. 

THE    REVOLUTION    WAS    TO    BE    INAUGURATED 
THE   1ST   OF    MAY. 

The  evidence  in  the  case  shows,  when  taken  together, 
that  it  was  the  expectation  and  intention  of  the  defend- 
ants, as  well  as  others  who  were  connected  with  the  con- 
spiracy, that  the  time  for  the  inauguration  of  the  social 
revolution  should  be  the  ist  of  May,  and  all  their  prepara- 
tions were  for  that  time.  Spies,  in  his  conversation  with 
Moulton  and  Shook,  at  Grand  Rapids,  said  to  them  that 
the  "  demonstration  "  would  probably  be  made  when  the 
workingmen  attempted  to  introduce  the  eight-hour  sys- 
tem, and  when  large  numbers  of  workingmen  were  out 
of  employment,  engaged  in  strikes  and  disaffected,  and  in 
a  frame  of  mind  in  which  they  could  be  easily  induced  to 
join  their  fortunes  with  those  of  the  revolutionists.  Spies, 
in  his  conversation  with  Wilkinson,  indicated  the  same 
fact,  and  Gruenhut,  himself  a  socialist,  who  introduced 
Wilkinson  to  Spies,  told  Wilkinson,  as  was  brought  out 
on  the  cross-examination,  that  the  time  contemplated  was 
about  the  ist  of  May.  Johnson,  the  detective,  says  that 
the  ist  of  May  was  frequently  mentioned  as  the  time 
when  the  revolution  could  probably  be  inaugurated,  and 
is  the  time  to  which  they  were  looking  forward.  More- 
over, he  says  that  Parsons,  speaking  of  the  west  side  car- 
drivers'  strike,  stated  if  one  shot  had  been  fired  and  Bon- 
field  had  been  slain,  the  social  revolution  would  have  been 
inaugurated.  At  a  public  meeting  held  at  West  I2th 
street  Turner  Hall,  resolutions  introduced  by  Spies  were 
adopted,  providing  that  workingmen  should  arm  them- 


132 

selves  and  be  in  readiness  for  the  ist  of  May.  The  ist 
of  May  came,  and  with  it  came  the  eight-hour  move- 
ment, a  movement,  as  is  well  known,  not  merely  local  to 
Chicago,  but  extending  over  the  whole  nation.  In  the 
city  of  Chicago  vast  numbers  of  workingmen  were  en- 
gaged in  a  strike.  There  were  constant  troubles  between 
them  and  their  employers;  they  were  laboring  under  a 
state  of  great  excitement,  and  the  conspirators  reasoned 
that  the  time  had  at  last  come  for  them  to  strike  the  blow 
to  inaugurate  the  revolution.  They  fondly  imagined  that 
success  was  sure,  and  that  they  would  take  their  place  in 
history  side  by  side  with  Washington. 

On  this  branch  of  the  case  we  call  attention  to  the  fol- 
lowing evidence: 

ANDREW  C.  JOHNSON  (J,  421)  testifies: 

"  Q.     What  was  said? 

"  A.  That  in  case  of  a  conflict  with  the  authorities 
the  International  Rifles  was  to  act  in  concert  with  the 
Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein,  and  obey  the  orders  of  the 
officers  of  that  organization. 

"  Q.  What,  if  anything,  was  said  at  any  time,  and 
when  said,  as  to  when  this  revolution  was  to  take  place, 
when  there  was  going  to  be  a  culmination  of  the  difficul- 
ties? 

"  A.  The  ist  of  May  -was  frequently  mentioned  as  a 
good  opportunity, 

"  Q.      What  "ist  of  May  f 

"A.      This  year. 

"  Q.  Mentioned  by  whom?  can  you  give  us  some 
time  when  it  was  mentioned? 

"A.  As  far  as  I  recollect,  it  was  a  meeting  at  I2th 
street  Turner  Hall,  on  one  occasion  in  December,  one  of 
the  meetings  which  I  attended  in  December  last;  and  it 
was  the  defendant  Fielden  said,  as  near  as  I  can  recollect: 
'  The  ist  of  May  will  be  our  time  to  strike  the  blow,  there 
are  so  many  strikes,  and  there  will  be  ffty  thousand  men 
out  of  work — that  is  to  say,  if  the  eight- hour  law  is  a  fail- 
ure— if  the  eight-hour  movement  is  a  failure.'  ' 


'33 

The  witness  says  (page  404): 

"  Parsons  spoke.  Referring  to  the  late  strike  of  street-car 
employes,  he  said:  '•If  but  one  shot  had  been  fired,  and 
Bonficld  had  happened  to  be  shot,  the  whole  city  -would  have 
been  deluged  in  blood,  and  the  social  revolution  would  have 
been  inaugurated.'' " 

JAMES  K.  MAGEE  testified  (I,  309):  That  he  attended 
a  public  meeting  at  the  I2th  street  Turner  Hall  on  the 
nth  day  of  October,  1885,  at  which  the  defendant  Spies 
introduced  resolutions.  The  witness,  continuing,  said: 
"  I  don't  know  as  I  can  give  expression  to  my  recollection 
any  better  than  I  have,  that  in  general  the  resolutions  pro- 
posed force,  proposed  or  advised  workingmen  to  arm 
themselves.  Other  features  of  the  resolutions  have  not 
impressed  themselves  upon  my  mind." 

"  Q.  Did  the  resolutions  contain  any  time  as  to  when 
this  movement  should  take  place?  As  to  when  the  labor- 
ing men  should  be  ready?  Arm  themselves  for  what  par- 
ticular time? 

"  A.     For  the  ist  of  May,  1886. 

"  *  *  *  Spies  was  warmly  in  favor  of  the  resolu- 
tions; he  supported  them.  *  *  *  The  word  dyna- 
mite was  used — a  general  proposition  to  arms;  this  was 
both  in  speeches  and  resolutions.  Fielden  also  spoke  in 
'  defense  of  the  general  sentiment  of  the  resolutions.'  It 
is  all  summed  up  in  the  words  'force,'  '  arms,'  and  'dyn- 
amite;' I  said  that  all  reforms  could  be  brought  about  by 
the  ballot;  I  was  opposed  to  force.  I  believed  this  was 
the  best  government  that  I  knew  anything  about;  J  spoke 
in  gc-neral  sympathy  with  the  workingmen  and  that  I  was 
in  favor  of  even  less  than  eight  hours,  and  six  hours  I 
thought  was  enough.  I  remember  that  I  spoke  ten  min- 
utes about  in  that  tenor. 

"  Q.  The  chairman  of  that  meeting  put  the  resolutions 
to  vote? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     Was  it  carried? 

"  A.     Yes,  the  resolutions  were  carried. 


'34 

"  Q.     By  what  kind  of  a  vote? 

"  A.     By  a  very  strong  vote — very  few  noes. 

HENRY  E.  O.  HEINEMANN,  a  reporter  for  the  Chicago 
Tribune,  testified  (I,  382): 

That  he  was  present  at  the  meeting  referred  to  by  the 
above  witness.  "  The  subject,  I  think,  was  the  impend- 
ing eight-hour  movement  that  was  to  be  inaugurated  on 
May  ist,  this  year.  And  the  resolutions  stated.  I  think, 
that  the  workingmen  could  not  hope  for  success  unless 
they  were  prepared  to  enforce  their  demands,  and  it  con- 
cluded with  the  sentence  that  was  published  the  next 
morning  in  our  paper,  which  said:  '  Death  to  the  enemies 
of  the  human  race,  our  despoilers';  something  of  that 
sort.  *  *  *  They  began  by  referring  to  the  eight- 
hour  movement  that  had  been  inaugurated  by  the  con- 
federated trades,  and  went  on  to  siy  that  the  proba- 
bilities were  that  the  property-owning  class  would  resist 
any  attempt  of  the  laborers  to  enforce  eight  hours  by 
calling  to  their  aid  the  police  and  the  militia,  and  if  the 
workingmen  were  determined  on  carrying  their  point  they 
would  have  to  arm  themselves,  and  be  ready  to  enforce 
their  demands  by  the  same  means  that  the  property- 
owning  class  would  use.  I  think  that  is  the  substance. 
*  *  *  The  ist  of  May  was  designated,  in  so  far  as 
the  commencement  of  the  eight-hour  movement  was 
fixed  at  that  day." 

In  the  Alarm  of  October  17,  1885  (People's  Exhibit, 
151),  is  an  account  of  the  same  meeting  as  that  referred 
to  by  Magee  and  Heinemann,  in  their  testimony  setting 
out  also  the  resolutions  to  which  they  referred.  A  por- 
tion of  the  article  is  as  follows: 

"  Mr.  August  Spies  was  introduced  at  this  point  and 
offered  the  following  resolution:  '  Whereas,  A  general 
move  has  been  started  among  the  organized  wage- 
workers  of  this  country  for  the  establishment  of  an  eight- 
hour  work  day,  to  begin  May  i,  1886.  And  Whereas,  It 
is  to  be  expected  that  the  class  of  professional  idlers,  the 
governing  class  who  prey  upon  the  bones  and  marrow  of 


the  useful  members  of  society,  will  resist  this  attempt 
by  calling  to  their  assistance  the  Pinkertons,  the  police 
and  state  militia.  Therefore,  be  it  Resolved,  that  we  urge 
upon  all  wage-workers  the  necessity  of  procuring  arms 
before  the  inauguration  of  the  proposed  eight-hour  strike 
in  order  to  be  in  a  position  of  meeting  our  foe  with  his 
own  argument — force.  Resolved,  That  while  we  are 
skeptical  in  regard  to  the  benefits  that  will  accrue  to  the 
wage-workers  in  the  introduction  of  an  eight-hour  work 
day,  we  nevertheless  pledge  ourselves  to  aid  and  assist 
our  brethren  in  this  vast  struggle  with  all  that  lies  in  our 
power,  as  long  as  they  show  an  open  and  defiant  front  to 
our  common  enemy,  the  labor-devouring  classes  of  aris- 
tocratic vagabonds,  the  brutal  murderers  of  our  comrades 
in  St.  Louis,  Lemont,  Chicago,  Philadelphia  and  other 
places.  Our  war-cry  may  be  'death  to  the  enemy  of  the 
human  race — our  despoilers.' 

"  August  Spies  supposed  that  Mr.  Magee  did  not  like 
the  terms  in  which  members  of  the  government  were  re- 
ferred to.  The  reason  of  this  was  that  Mr.  Magee  was 
one  of  those  political  vagabonds  himself.  There  were 
9,000,000  of  people  engaged  in  industrial  trades  in 
this  country.  There  were  but  one  million  of  them 
as  yet  organized,  while  there  were  two  million  of  them 
unemployed.  To  mike  a  movement  in  -which  they 
were  engaged  a  successful  one,  it  must  be  a  revolutionary 
one.  Don't  let  us,  he  exclaimed,  forget  the  most  forcible 
argument  of  all — the  gun  and  dynamite." 

MARSHALL  L.  WILLIAMSON  testified  (J,  6) :  That  on 
the  night  of  the  board  of  trade  demonstration,  which  was 
April  15,  1885,  Parsons  told  him  that  when  they  met  the 
police,  they  were  prepared  with  bombs  of  dynamite. 
Felden  was  standing  at  his  elbow  at  the  time,  and  he  said 
the  next  lime  the  police  attempted  to  interfere  with  them 
they  would  be  prepared  for  them.  I  asked  him  when 
that  would  be?  fie  said  he  did  not  knoiv,  -perhaps  in  the 
course  of  a  year  or  so. 


136 

MOULTON  (I,  280)  testified: 

"  Q.  Was  there  anything  said  at  that  conversation 
about  the  eight  hour  movement,  wheir  it  was  to  culmi- 
nate, or  when  this  revolution  was  to  culminate? 

"  A.  There  was  something  said  about  an  eight-hour 
movement. 

"  Q.     What  was  said  with  reference  to  that? 

"  A.  It  was  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  subject 
of  a  great  number  of  men  likely  to  be  idle  and  unem- 
ployed; and  in  answer  to  the  question  as  to  when  the 
demonstration  was  likely  to  be  made,  which  they  pro- 
posed to  make,  he  stated  substantially  that  it  would  prob- 
ably come  at  a  time  when  the  workmen  attempted  to  in- 
troduce the  eight-hour  system  of  labor." 

WILKINSON  (J,  150)  testified: 

"  Then,  after  I  had  gotten  nearly  full  of  that  sort  of 
information,  I  began  to  find  out  when  this  would  prob- 
ably occur,  and  he  (Spies)  did  not  fix  the  date  precisely 
or  approximately  at  that  time.  He  subsequently  in- 
formed him  that  this  conflict  would  probably  occur  in  the 
first  conflict  between  the  police  and  the  militia.  That  if 
the  men  were  to  strike,  it  would  be  a  universal  strike  for 
this  eight-hour-a-day — eight-hour  system.  That  there 
would  probably  be  a  conflict  of  some  sort  brought  about 
in  some  way  between  the  First  and  Second  regiments  of 
the  Illinois  National  Guards  and  the  Chicago  police  and 
the  dynamiters  on  the  other  hand.  He  said  that  there 
were  thousands  of  bombs  in  the  hands  of  men  who 
knew  how  and  when  to  use  them,  who  were  not  afraid  to 
use  them." 

On  cross-examination  brought  out  by  counsel  for  de- 
fendants (page  162): 

"  Mr.  BLACK.  Q.  Now,  Mr.  Wilkinson,  did  Joe 
Gruenhut  say  anything  about  the  ist  of  May,  or  any 
time  in  May? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     He  did?     What  did  he  mention  about  May? 

"  A.  He  said  that  the  conflict  to  which  Mr.  Spies  re- 
ferred— 


137 

"  Q.  Never  mind — now  did  he  say,  '  To  which  Mr. 
Spies  referred?' 

"  A.     Yes,  sir.     This  was — 

"  Q.     What  was  that  expression? 

"  A.     I  asked  him— 

"  Q.     What  was  that  expression?     Did  he — 

"  A.  After  we  came  away  from  the  table  I  walked 
with  Mr.  Gruenhut,  and  Mr.  Spies  said  he  had  an  ap- 
pointment. 

"  Q.  My  question  is,  did  Joe  Gruenhut  use  that  ex- 
pression, '  The  conflict  to  which  Mr.  Spies  referred?' 

"  A.     I  did  not  quote  him  as  saying  so  yet. 

"  Q.  That  is  my  question.  Then  you  did  not  say 
that;  is  that  true? 

"  A.     I  have  not  said  that  he  did. 

"  Q.  You  started  to  say  what  you  did  say,  as  the 
record  will  show.  I  ask  you  what  Joe  Gruenhut  said 
about  May? 

"  A.  He  said  that  the  conflict  to  which  our  conversa- 
tion referred  at  the  table  would  occur  probably  about  the 
ist  of  May,  or  within  a  few  days  thereafter,  and  that  it 
might  extend  all  over  the  country. 

"  Q.     That  was  what  conflict? 

"  A.  A  general  conflict  between  laborers  and  capi- 
talists." 


V, 

EVENTS  IMMEDIATELY  PRECEDING  THE  HAYMARKET 
MEETING  AND   LINGG'S  ACTION  THAT  NIGHT. 

The  bomb  was  thrown  on  the  night  of  Tuesday,  May 
4,  1886.  On  Sunday,  May  2d,  there  appeared  in  "  Die 
Fackel"  an  article  describing  the  condition  of  the  eight- 
hour  movement  which  was  then  in  progress,  declaring 
that  the  movement  would  culminate  by  Monday  or  Tues- 
day, that  something  must  be  done  by  that  time  or  that  all 
would  be  lost. 

On  the  same  day  a  meeting  of  the  north-western  group 


138 

of  the  International  was  held  at  Emma  street,  at  which  the 
defendants,  Engel  and  Fischer,  and  others  were  present, 
and  at  that  meeting  a  plan  was  proposed  for  righting  the 
police  and  the  militia,  which  is  very  significant. 

On  Monday,  May  3d,  Spies  attended  a  meeting  of  the 
Lumber-Shovers'  Union,  held  near  McCormick's  factory. 
The  meeting  was  composed  entirely  of  lumber-shovers, 
who  at  that  time  were  upon  a  strike,  and  endeavoring  to 
secure  the  eight-hour  system.  They  had  been  having 
negotiations  with  the  lumber  bosses.  The  meeting  was 
called  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  the  reports  of  committees 
who  had  been  conducting  the  negotiations.  At  that  time 
McCormick's  workmen  had  also  struck  and  a  large  num- 
ber of  "  scabs,"  as  they  are  termed,  were  employed  in  the 
factory.  The  Lumber-Shovers'  Union  had  no  connec- 
tion with  and  no  interest  in  the  strike  of  the  McCormick 
employes,  although  their  meeting  was  held  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  McCormick  works.  At  that  meeting 
Spies  and  a  socialist  named  Fehling  appeared  and  made 
speeches.  Opposition  was  made  to  their  speaking.  The 
president  of  the  meeting  objected;  stones  and  other  mis- 
siles were  at  first  thrown  at  them;  but  they  insisted  and 
finally  prevailed.  The  speeches  which  they  made  were 
of  an  inflammatory  character  and  soon  aroused  the  pas- 
sions of  the  crowd  to  a  fighting  pitch.  This  appears  not 
only  from  the  testimony  of  witnesses  who  were  present, 
some  of  whom,  however,  could  not  understand  the  lan- 
guage in  which  the  speeches  were  made,  but  also  from 
subsequent  declarations  of  Spies  and  from  the  articles 
written  with  his  own  hand  and  published  in  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung  of  the  next  day;  an  article  of  an  exceedingly  in- 
flammatory and  incendiary  character,  in  which  he  says 
that  if  the  mob  had  been  armed  "  with  one  single  dyna- 


J39 

"  mite  bomb  not  one  of  the  murderers  {police)  would   have 
"  escaped" 

While  Spies  was  speaking  a  bell  at  the  McCormick 
factory,  about  3  p.  M.,  indicating  that  the  day's  work  was 
done,  rang.  The  "  scabs,"  through  with  the  day's  toil, 
were  leaving  the  factory.  Some  one  in  the  crowd  which 
Spies  was  addressing,  who,  it  is  not  known,  cried  out, 
"  There  go  the  scabs!"  Whereupon  a  portion  of  the 
crowd  rushed  toward  McCormick's  and  commenced  pelt- 
ing the  "  scabs "  with  stones.  This  precipitated  a  con- 
flict. The  police  were  notified  and  soon  arrived  in  patrol 
wagons.  During  the  conflict  stones  were  thrown  and 
shots  were  fired  by  both  the  police  and  the  mob.  As 
soon  as  the  shots  were  fired,  before  he  could  have  known 
whether  any  one  was  injured  or  not,  Spies  took  a  Blue 
Island  avenue  car  and  returned  to  the  city.  He  im- 
mediately went  to  the  office  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  and 
wrote  out  the  "  Revenge  Circular,"  a  circular  exceedingly 
inflammatory  in  its  character,  headed  in  heavy  type, 
"  REVENGE  !"  "  WORKINGMEN,  TO  ARMS!  !  !  "  and  stating 
that  the  blood  hounds,  the  police,  had  killed  six  of  their 
brothers  at  McCormick's  that  afternoon  because  they  had 
dared  to  ask  for  a  shortening  of  the  hours  of  toil,  and  to 
show  them,  "  free  American  citizens,"  that  they  must 
be  satisfied  with  whatever  their  bosses  condescend  to 
allow  them  or  be  killed.  It  declared  that  the  working- 
men  had  endured  the  most  abject  humiliation  for  years, 
had  suffered  unmeasurable  iniquities,  had  worked  them- 
selves to  death  and  endured  the  pangs  of  want  and  hunger; 
that  their  children  had  been  sacrificed  to  the  factory  lords; 
that  they  had  been  miserable  and  obedient  slaves  for 
years  to  satisfy  the  insatiable  greed  and  to  fill  the  coffers 
of  their  lazy,  thieving  masters. 


140 

"  If,"  it  concluded,  "you  are  men,  if  you  are  the  sons  of 
"  your  grandsires,  who  have  shed  their  blood  to  free  you, 
"  then  you  will  rise  in  your  might,  Hercules,  and  de- 
"  stroy  the  hideous  monster  that  seeks  to  destroy  you. 
"To  Arms,  we  call  you,  to  Arms! 

"  YOUR  BROTHERS." 

This  circular  was  printed  in  both  English  and  German, 
the  portion  in  German  being  even  more  inflammatory  than 
that  in  English.  Although  it  was  but  about  twelve 
inches  in  length,  six  or  eight  printers  were  kept  after 
hours  at  the  office  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  employed  in 
setting  it  up,  so  that  it  could  be  done  quickly.  Numbers 
of  men  took  it  as  fast  as  it  was  stricken  from  the  press 
and  circulated  it  in  different  portions  of  the  city;  one  man 
distributed  it  on  horseback.  It  was  distributed  principally 
in  saloons  and  halls  in  which  the  anarchists  were  accus- 
tomed to  meet,  and  in  which,  at  that  time,  owing  to  the 
fact  that  large  numbers  of  these  workingmen  were  out  of 
employment  engaged  in  a  strike,  they  were  ip  the  habit 
of  congregating. 

That  day  there  appeared  in  the  "  briefkasten  "  or 
"  letter  box "  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  the  cabalistic 
sign— 

"  Y KOMME    MONTAG    ABEND  " 

(Y — Come  Monday  Night),  a  signal  which  meant  that 
the  different  members  of  all  the  armed  sections,  whether 
of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein,  or  of  the  groups, 
or  of  any  other  organization,  should  meet  at  Greif's 
Hall,  54  West  Lake  street.  That  night  from  sixty 
to  eighty  of  these  armed  men  from  the  different  portions 
of  the  city  and  from  the  different  organizations  met  at 
that  place.  They  held  their  meeting  in  the  basement 


under  the  saloon.  The  meeting  was  secret.  Guards 
were  stationed  at  the  doors,  and  no  one  was  per- 
mitted in  there  except  those  connected  with  it.  The 
meeting  was  presided  over  by  Waller.  They  first  dis- 
cussed the  fact  that  six  of  their  brothers  were  slain  at 
McCormick's,  a  fact  of  which  they  had  been  apprised  by 
the  "  Revenge  Circular."  They  then  discussed  what 
they  should  do  for  the  next  few  days,  and  it  was  agreed 
that  they  should  hold  themselves  in  readiness  to  come  to 
the  assistance  of  the  workingmen  whenever  a  conflict 
should  be  precipitated  in  any  part  of  the  city  between 
them  and  the  police.  Waller  proposed  that  a  meeting  of 
the  workingmen  should  be  called  for  the  next  morning  at 
Market  square,  a  widening  of  Market  street  on  the 
south  side,  near  the  center  of  the  city.  Fischer  opposed 
the  plan,  saying  that  the  Market  square  was  a  mouse-tra^p; 
that  the  meeting  should  be  held  on  the  Haymarket 
square,  which  is  a  widening  of  Randolph  street  on  the 
west  side  of  the  city,  beginning  at  Desplaines  and  ending 
at  Halsted,  and  is  within  a  block  of  the  Desplaines  street 
station,  as  it  would  then  be  attended  by  a  large  number 
of  workingmen.  It  was  expected  that  there  would  be 
present  at  the  meeting  25,000  people. 

This  plan  was  adopted,  and  it  was  agreed  also  that  the 
mass-meeting  should  be  called  by  circulars,  which  Fischer 
undertook  to  have  printed,  and,  in  pursuance  'of  that, 
left  the  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  having  them  printed 
that  evening,  but  came  back,  saying  that  the  printing  offices 
were  closed.  Engel  then  said  that  the  north-west 
side  group  had,  at  a  meeting  on  the  previous  Sun- 
day, agreed  upon  a  plan  for  fighting  the  police,  and 
proposed  that  the  different  armed  organizations 
should  station  themselves  at  different  places  in  the  out- 


142 

skirts  of  the  city  and  be  ready  to  come  to  the  assistance 
of  the  workingmen  at  any  place  where  they  should  be  at- 
tacked; that  they  should  be  armed  with  bombs  and  other 
weapons,  and  in  case  of  a  conflict  should  destroy  the  po- 
lice wherev.er  they  appeared  and  should  annihilate  the 
firemen  and  destroy  their  hose.  The  plan  further  con- 
templated that  whenever  the  signal  was  given  these  dif- 
ferent bodies  should  march  in  towards  the  center  of  the 
city,  destroying  whoever  should  oppose  them.  It  was 
agreed  also  that  the  reliable  men  who  were  not  present 
should  be  notified  of  this  plan.  Schnaubelt  proposed  that 
their  comrades  in  other  cities  should  be  notified  of  it.  The 
plan  contemplated  that  these  bodies  of  armed  men  should 
act  whenever  they  received  the  signal.  Fischer  pro- 
posed that  the  signal  should  be  the  word  "  Ruhe,"  a 
German  word,  signifying  peace,  and  it  was  agreed  that 
whenever  the  word  "  Ruhe  "  should  appear  in  the  "  letter- 
box "  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  that  was  to  be  the  signal; 
that  the  revolution  had  come.  The  details  of  the  Haymar- 
ket  meeting  and  the  control  of  it  were  left  to  a  committee, 
it  being  understood  that  those  present  that  night  should 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Haymarket  meeting,  except 
those  who  were  members  of  the  committee,  but  should  be 
stationed  and  ready,  as  is  above  indicated. 

Lingg  was  attending  a  meeting  of  the  Carpenters' 
Union  held  a  few  doors  from  Greif's  Hall.  He  said  to 
Capt.  Schaack  after  his  arrest  that  he  was  present  for 
a  few  minutes  at  the  meeting  in  Greif  's  Hall.  That  night, 
after  the  carpenters'  meeting  had  broken  up,  Lingg  and 
a  man  named  Lehmann,  one  of  the  witnesses  for  the  state, 
and  several  others  went  home  together.  On  the  way 
home  Lehmann,  who  stood  guard  outside  of  the  door  at 
the  Greif's  Hall  meeting,  referring  to  the  meeting  at 


Greif's  Hall,  asked  Lingg  what  took  place  there.  Lingg 
said  if  he  wanted  to  know  something  that  he  should  come 
to  58  Clybourn  avenue  the  next  evening. 

The  next  day,  Tuesday,  Fischer  wrote  the  circular 
headed,  "  Attention,  Workingmen,"  calling  a  mass-meet- 
ing at  Haymarket  square,  at  7:30  o'clock  that  night,  to 
denounce  the  latest  atrocious  act  of  the  police,  the  shoot- 
ing of  fellow  workingmen  the  day  before,  and  concluding, 
"Working-men,  arm  yourselves,  and  appear  in. 
full  force,"  signed  "The  Executive  Committee."  He 
had  a  number  of  these  circulars  printed,  some  of  which 
were  distributed.  The  circular  was  changed,  it  appears, 
at  the  instance  of  Spies,  by  striking  out  the  line,  "  Work_ 
"  ingmen,  arm  yourselves  and  appear  in  full  force."  The 
reason  for  his  action  appears  in  his  own  evidence,  wherein 
he  says  that  he  considered  it  a  very  foolish  proceeding, 
for  if  the  line  appeared  the  workingmen  would  stay 
away.  In  the  issue  of  the  Arbeittr  Zeitung  of  that  day 

the  word 

"RUHE" 

appeared  in  the  "letter-box,"  the  signal  proposed  by 
Fischer  and  agreed  upon  by  the  meeting  the  night  pre- 
viously. The  manuscript  for  the  work,  obtained  the  next 
morning  at  the  office  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  is  in  Spies' 
own  handwriting. 

The  same  day,  in  the  morning,  Lingg,  who  had  for 
several  months  previously  been  engaged  in  the  manu- 
facture of  bombs,  and  who  was  boarding  with  Seliger, 
sent  Seliger  to  a  neighboring  hardware  store  to  purchase 
bolts  to  be  used  in  the  construction  of  bombs,  and  set 
him  to  work  manufacturing  them.  Lingg  himself  left 
his  boarding-house  and  did  not  return  until  about  noon. 
Seliger  worked  but  a  short  time.  Upon  his  return  Lingg 


upbraided  him,  saying  that  the  bombs  would  be  needed 
that  night  and  ought  to  be  ready.  That  afternoon  Lingg, 
Seliger  and  others  worked  all  of  the  time  manufacturing 
and  filling  bombs.  During  the  day  persons  known  to 
Seliger  and  his  wife — anarchists — from  time  to  time  came 
to  the  house  and  went  away  with  bombs;  also  persons 
not  known  to  Seliger  or  his  wife  came  and  went.  A 
large  number  were  made  ready  for  use.  That  night, 
about  8: 30  o'clock,  Seliger  and  Lingg  took  the  valise 
filled  with  bombs  to  a  place  known  as  Neff's  Hall,  some- 
times called  "  The  Shanty  of  the  Communist,"  a  place 
for  meeting  of  different  anarchistic  organizations. 

They  carried  them  through  the  saloon  into  a  passage- 
way which  led  to  the  hall  in  the  rear,  where  they  laid  it 
down. 

A  number  of  persons  from  lime  to  time  came  there, 
obtained  bombs,  and  started  oft  with  them. 

Seliger  and  Lingg  left  Neef's  Hall  with  the  bombs  in 
their  pockets  and  went  on  Clybourn  avenue  to  Larrabee 
street.  On  the  way  Lingg  said  to  Seliger  that  there  was 
to  be  a  disturbance  made  that  night  on  the  north  side,  as 
had  been  previously  determined,  to  prevent  the  police 
from  going  to  the  west  side.  As  they  passed  the  police 
station  Lingg  remarked  that  it  would  be  a  beautiful  thing 
to  walk  over  and  throw  one  or  two  bombs  into  the  sta- 
tion. While  they  were  walking  on  Larrabee  street,  a 
short  distance  from  North  avenue,  a  patrol  wagon  filled 
with  policemen  came  by.  Lingg  wanted  to  throw  a 
bomb  at  it.  Seliger  said  it  would  be  without  any  effect, 
when  Lingg  became  wild  and  excited  and  asked  Seliger 
for  a  light.  Seliger  stepped  into  a  store  to  get  a  light, 
in  the  meantime  the  patrol  wagon  passed.  Lingg  started 
after  the  wagon,  saying  that  something  certainly  must 


H5 

have  happened  on  the  west  side.  At  various  times  after 
they  left  Neff's  Hall,  and  before  they  got  home,  Lingg 
expressed  an  anxiety  to  know  how  matters  stood  on  the 
west  side,  and  asked  Seliger  if  he  had  seen  the  notice  in 
the  paper.  Upon  reaching  their  home  Lingg  pointed 
out  the  word  "  Ruhe  "  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung.  Up  to 
that  time  Seliger  had  not  known  its  meaning.  Lingg 
said  it  meant  everything  was  to  go  upside  down,  topsy- 
turvy; that  there  was  to  be  trouble;  that  a  meeting  had 
been  held  at  54  West  Lake  street,  and  it  was  determined 
upon  that  the  word  "  Ruhe  "  should  appear  in  the  papers 
as  a  signal  for  the  armed  men  to  appear  at  that  meeting. 
Lingg  wanted  to  go  to  the  west  side,  and  Seliger  pre- 
vailed on  him  to  go  back  to  Neff's  saloon.  They  arrived 
there  sometime  after  n  o'clock.  Several  persons  were 
there  talking  about  the  fact  that  a  bomb  had  been  ex- 
ploded at  the  Haymarket.  A  man  by  the  name  of  Heu- 
man  said  to  Lingg,  in  a  very  energetic  tone  of  voice, 
"  You  were  the  fault  of  all  of  it."  Seliger  did  not  hear 
Lingg's  response,  and  on  his  way  home  Lingg  said  to 
Seliger  that  he  was  even  now  scolded,  chided,  for  the 
work  that  he  had  done.  They  hid  their  bombs  under  an 
elevated  sidewalk  in  Sigel  street,  near  Hurlbut,  and  'then 
went  home,  where  they  remained  for  the  night. 


(A.)     ARTICLES  IN  THE  ARBEITER  ZEITUNG. 

In  the  issue  of  "  Die  Fackel  "  (Sunday  edition  of  Ar- 
beiter Zeitung)  of  May  2d,  the  article,  "  Now  or  Never," 
contains  the  following  passage  (People's  Exhibit  72): 

"  Even  where  the  workmen  are  willing  to  accept  a  cor- 
responding reduction  of  wages  with  the  introduction  of 


146 

the  eight-hour  system,  they  were  mostly  refused.  '  No, 
ye  dogs;  you  must  work  ten  hours;  that's  the  way  we 
want  it,  we're  your  bosses.'.  Something  like  this  was  the 
answer  of  the  majority  translated  into  intelligible  language. 

"  ///  the  face  of  this  fact  it  is  pitiful  and  disgusting,  but 
more  than  that,  it  is  treacherous  to  warn  the  strikers  against 
energetic,  uncompromising  measures. 

"  jEz'crything  depends  upon  quick  and  immediate  action. 
The  tactics  of  the  bosses  are  to  gain  time;  the  tactics  of  the 
strikers  must  be  to  grant  them  no  time.  By  Monday  or 
Tuesday  the  conflict  must  haz-c  reached  it  highest  intensity, 
else  the  success  will  be  doubtful.  Within  a  week  the  fire, 
the  enthusiasm,  will  be  gone,  and  then  the  bosses  will  cele- 
brate victories. 

"  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  April  28,  1886.  Editorial  on  second 
page,  headed  "  Editorial."  What  anarchists  have  pre- 
dicted months  ago,  they  have  realized  now.  In  quiet  times 
the  shackles  of  law  were  forged  to  apply  them  in  tempestu- 
ous times.  From  dusty  garrets  they  have  fetched  their 
musty  law  books,  and  so,  by  a  practical  application  of  Amer- 
ican liberty,  tried  to  build  a  wall  against  the  stream  of  the 
laborers'  movement. 

"  Well,  after  you  have  erected  protecting  walls  in  the 
shape  of  laws,  we  will  have  to  break  them.  The  theory 
of  the  homoeopath,  '  like  cures  like,'  is  applicable  here. 
The  power  of  the  associate  manufacturers  and  their  state 
must  be  met  by  labor  associations.  The  police  and  soldiers 
who  fight  for  that  power  must  be  met  b\  armed  armies  of 
i.'urkingmen;  the  logic  of  facts  requires  this;  arms  are 
more  necessary  in  our  times  than  anything  else.  Whoever 
has  no  monc\,  sell  his  watch  and  chain  to  buy  fire-arms  for 
the  amount  realized.  Stones  and  sticks  will  not  a~cail 
against  the  hired  assassins  of  the  extortionists.  It  is  time 
to  arm  yourselves. 

"  What  a  modest  demand,  the  introduction  of  the 
eight-hour  day,  and  yet  a  corps  of  madmen  could  not  de- 
mean themselves  worse  than  the  capitalistic  extortioners. 
They  continually  threaten  with  their  disciplined  police  and 
their  strong  militia,  and  those  are  not  empty  threats  in- 
deed. This  is  proved  by  the  history  of  the  last  few  years. 
It  is  a  nice  thing,  this  patience,  and  the  laborer,  alas,  has 


too  much  of  this  article,  but  one   must  not   indulge  in   a 

'  O 

too  frivolous  play  with  it.  If  you  go  further  his  patience 
will  cease,  then  it  will  no  longer  be  a  question  of  the 
eight-hour  day,  but  a  question  of  emancipation  from  wage 
slavery." 


(B.)     THE  McCORMICK  RIOT. 

FRANK  HARASTER,  a  Bohemian,  a  laborer  who  had 
been  working  eleven  years  in  the  lumber  yards  testified 
(I,  412)  that  he  was  president  of  the  Lumber- 
Shovers'  Union;  was  present  at  the  meeting  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  McCormick  works  on  May  3d;  the  meet- 
ing was  called  to  receive  the  report  of  the  committee 
which  had  been  sent  to  the  bosses  of  the  lumber-yards  to 
consult  in  regard  to  the  eight-hour  movement;  when  he 
got  to  the  meeting  a  great  many  people  were  gathered, 
and  one  speech  had  been  made;  it  was  3  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon;  when  he  got  there  the  speaking  was  already 
going  on ;  he  told  the  speaker  it  was  not  his  duty  to 
make  a  speech,  as  the  meeting  had  been  called  for  3 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  "  I  kept  him  from  speaking.  I 
"  told  the  people  to  keep  quiet,  and  not  listen  to  the 
"  speaker,  that  it  should  not  culminate  in  a  thing  as  it 
"  happened  in  1877,  *  *  *  when  some  people  ran 
"  towards  McCormick's  to  drive  out  the  scabs.  I  tried  to 
"  keep  them  back  and  get  them  to  go  home.  I  told  the 
"  people  not  to  listen  to  those  speakers,  for  the  speeches 
"  were  probably  such  as  were  poisonous;  that  they  should 
"not  listen  to  them;  that  they  poisoned." 

The  witness  further  testified  that  the  Lumber-Shovers' 
Union  was  composed  of  over  six  thousand  men — three 
thousand  Bohemians  and  over  three  thousand  Germans; 


148 

that  he  was  president  of  the  Bohemians;  that  the  meeting 
was  a  meeting  only  of  the  lumber  workingmen. 

E.  T.  BAKER  testified  (I,  400)  that  he  heard  Spies 
speaking  from  the  car;  while  he  was  speaking  the  bell  at 
McCormick's  rang;  he  seemed  to  be  very  much  excited; 
the  crowd  listened  patiently  until  the  bell  at  McCormick's 
rang,  when  a  man  standing  to  the  left  of  the  speaker,  on 
the  end  ot  the  car,  rushed  forward  and  shouted,  "  Now, 
"  boys,  let  us  go  for  the  damned  scabs  at  McCormick's! " 
At  that  moment  persons  in  the  crowd 'commenced  to  move 
away  towards  McCormick's;  some  of  the  people  on  the 
car  remained  for  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  after;  a  portion  of 
the  crowd,  about  two  thousand  in  number,  went  towards 
McCormick's;  the  balance  of  it  dispersed  in  different 
directions. 

ARCHIBALD  LECKIE,  a  reporter,  testified  (I,  406) 
that  he  was  present  at  the  McCormick  meeting;  that  he 
got  there  about  i  o'clock:  preparations  for  the  speaking 
were  going  on  at  that  time;  the  crowd  was  assembled; 
the  speakers  were  on  a  box  car,  among  whom  were  Spies 
and  a  Mr.  Fehling;  every  one  was  anxious  to  speak,  and 
there  seemed  to  be  some  discussion  on  the  subject;  they 
pushed  one  man  back,  and  he  jumped  forward  again. 
"  By  the  time  I  arrived  there,  there  was  a  man  speak- 
"  ing.  I  don't  know  him  (the  man  who  was  speaking). 
"  I  never  saw  him  before  or  since,  and  I  think  he  was 
"  speaking  in  German — either  German  or  Bohemian.  I 
"  did  not  really  get  close  enough  to  him  until  after  he  got 
"  through;  he  only  made  a  short  speech,  and  speeches 
*'  followed  in  English,  German  and  Bohemian,  and  I  paid 
"  very  little  attention  to  them  until  I  heard  this  Mr.  Feh- 
"  ling  speak,  and  he  made  a  very  incendiary  speech,  I 


"  think,  from  my  knowledge  of  German.  The  words 
"  *  bomben,'  and  '  revolvers,'  and  '  messer '  are  the  words 
"  that  caught  my  ear.  I  am  not  conversant  with  German, 
"  but  those  are  the  words  that  I  particularly  understood, 
"  and  the  word  '  Freiheit,'  if  I  pronounce  it  right.  That 
"  I  know  means  freedom;  and  from  his  gestures  he 
"  seemed  to  be  telling  men  to  use  the  knife.  I  heard  the 
"  words  'dynamite  '  and  'bombs." 

The  witness  then  telephoned  his  report  to  the  Tribune 
office  and  returned  to  the  meeting,  but  was  thrown  from 
the  car  by  the  parties  on  it.  Among  the  parties  opposing 
his  being  there  was  the  speaker  (Fehling). 

JAMES  L.  FRAZIER  testified  (I,  393),  that  on  the 
afternoon  of  the  3d  of  May,  he  was  present  at  the  meet- 
ing on  the  Black  road,  near  McCormick's;  he  recognized 
Spies  as  one  of  the  persons  speaking;  he  could  not  un- 
derstand his  language;  there  were  from  three  to  five 
thousand  persons  present,  .  the  largest  portion  of  them 
Bohemians;  the  manner  of  the  speaker  was  very  excited. 
During  the  speech  some  one  standing  upon  the  same  car 
with  the  speaker  motioned  and  said  in  broken  English, 
"  Go  up  and  kill  the  damned  scabs  !  "  that  were  coming 
from  work.  The  greater  part  of  the  crowd  rushed 
towards  McCormick's.  Spies  did  not  go  ivith  the  croivd, 
but  came  over  tozvards  Blue  Island  avenue,  on  -which  there 
is  a  street-car  line  hading  to  Chicago,  and  the  ivitnc-ss  lost 
sight  of  him  going  in  that  direction. 

J.  A.  WEST  testifies  (I,  388),  that  he  was  a  policeman 
on  duty  near  the  gates  at  the  McCormick  reaper  factory 
on  the  afternoon  of  the  3d  of  May;  that  from  where  he 
was  stationed  he  could  see  the  parties  speaking  on  the 
top  of  the  car;  that  when  the  bell  rang,  and  the  men 


("scabs")  came  from  work,  they  came  out  of  the  big 
gate,  and  some  went  east  and  some  west,  and  a  mob  of 
three  or  four  thousand  in  number,  coming  across  the 
prairie  from  near  the  speaker's  stand,  attacked  the  men 
and  threw  bricks,  stones  and  sticks,  and  drove  them  back; 
that  he  went  up  and  tried  to  tell  the  mob  that  McCor- 
mick  had  given  the  demand  for  the  wages  that  they 
wanted,  and  urged  them  to  go  back,  but  they  would  not. 
"  They  fell  right  in  and  followed  them  right  up,  and  got 
me  surrounded  and  bricked  me,  and  1  went,  got  into  the 
crowd,  into  the  mob  and  went  towards  the  patrol-box, 
and  I  turned  in  the  alarm  for  the  police  to  come  at  once 
down  there,  for  they  were  shooting  at  that  time. 

"  Q.  From  what  crowd  did  the  shooting  come  at  that 
time  ? 

"  A.     From  the  crowd  that  came  across  the  prairie. 

"  Q.     That  came  down  from  the  car  t 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     Had  you  shot  ? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     Had  your  partner  ? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Were  you  the  only  two  policemen  on  the 
ground  ? 

"A.  We  were  the  only  two  policemen  there.  *  *  The 
men  that  came  from  McCormick's  did  not  shoot.  They 
run  back,  some  of  them  run  in,  and  some  run  over  across 
the  prairie,  back  as  far  as  they  could  get,  out  of  the  way, 
the  best  way  they  could,  and  they  come  right  down  there 
and  they  throwed  stones  through  the  windows  and  shot 
through  the  windows,  and  I  worked  my  way  up  through 
the  crowd  and  turned  in  the  alarm  for  the  police  to  come 
down.  It  seemed  about  an  hour  before  the  police  came, 
although  it  was  but  seven  or  eight  minutes.  *  *  They 
(the  police)  drove  right  in,  drove  right  in  through  the 
crowd  down  towards  the  gate  and  I  tried  to  get  back, 
and  the  crowd  had  got  down  so  far  they  wouldn't  let  me 
back,  and  so  I  went  down  towards  the  river  and  got  over 


the  fence  into  McCormick's  yard  and  got  in  where  the 
police  were  at  that  time.  I  was  injured  so  as  to  be  laid 
up  for  three  days." 

JOHN  ENRIGHT,  a  police  sergeant,  testified  (I,  416)  that 
on  that  afternoon  he  went  with  the  patrol  wagon,  contain- 
ing ten  men,  to  McCormick's,  at  half-past  3  in  the  aft- 
ernoon; it  was  the  first  patrol  wagon  that  had  arrived  at 
McCormick's;  drove  through  the  crowd  into  the  yard 
and  commenced  to  drive  the  mob  that  were  stoning  the 
building  out  of  the  yard  as  fast  as  they  could.  The  mob 
rallied  and  "  we  heard  shots  coming  from  different  parts 
"  of  the  crowd  and  we  scattered  then,  about  twenty  or 
'  thirty  feet  apart,  in  order  to  keep  the  crowd  back  and 
"  keep  all  the  ground  that  we  had  cleared  between  the 
"  crowd  and  the  building,  and  hold  that  clear  and  keep 
"  them  from  the  buildings.  They  were  throwing  a  shower 
"  of  stones  at  us;  some  of  them  leading  the  crowd  and 
"  encouraging  them  for  to  beat  us  back — some  different 
"  portions  of  the  crowd." 

Shots  were  fired  from  different  portions  of  the  crowd. 
The  police  began  to  fire  when  they  heard  shots  fired  from 
other  points.  "  I  tried  to  speak  to  the  crowd  and  pacify 
"them,  and  tell  them  for  to  go  back  and  keep  back;  if 
"they  would  not,  some  of  them  would  get  hurt;  the  more 
"I  would  try  to  pacify  them  and  keep  them  back  the 
"  more  they  would  throw  stones  at  me  and  the  rest  of  the 
"men;  so  when  I  could  not  keep  them  back  and  they 
"  would  be  closing  right  in  onto  me,  I  would  fire." 

After  it  was  over  he  looked  around  to  see  if  any  of  the 
crowd  were  dead  or  wounded,  but  found  no  one  injured 
from  the  effects  of  bullets. 

L.  F.  SHANE  testified  (I,  423)  that  he  was  one  of  the 


152 

officers  that  were  sent  to  McCormick's  at  the  time  of  the 
riot;  got  there  after  the  patrol  wagon  under  charge  of 
Sergeant  Enright;  after  the  riot  was  over  he  found  two 
of  the  mob  who  were  wounded;  one  of  them  the  day  after 
died  from  the  results  of  an  operation;  he  made  investiga- 
tion to  learn  how  many  were  injured,  and  found  that  one 
died  and  that  two  or  three  others  were  injured.  "  As  we 
"  advanced  to  help  our  brother  officers,  we  staid  in  front — 
"  kept  them  behind — several  of  them  shooting  at  the 
"  officers  in  front  of  us;  they,  being  wild,  did  not  see  this 
"  company  coming  up  in  the  rear  of  them;  I  saw  one  man 
"  myself  shooting  at  my  partner  officer,  and  our  lieuten- 
"  ant  stopped  him,  and  we  arrested  him,  and  as  we 
"  arrested  him  he ,  throwed  up  the  gun  (revolver),  and 
"  throwed  the  gun  away  from  him ;  one  of  my  partner 
"  officers  picked  up  the  gun,  which  was  not  the  only  one, 
"  but  there  were  several.  *  *  We  marched  right 
"  across  the  corner  of  the  prairie  and  over  where  the 
"  crowd  was." 

In  the  issue  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  May  4th  is 
an  article  entitled  "  Blood!"  written  by  Spies,  in  which 
he  described  the  occurrences  as  they  took  place  at  Mc- 
Cormick's. It  is  as  follows: 

"  BLOOD. 

"  Lead  and  Powder  as  a   Cure  for   Dissatisfied    Work- 
men ! 
"  About   Six  Laborers    Mortally,    and  Four    Times  that 

Number  slightly  Wounded! 
"  Thus  are  the  Eight-hour  Men  to  be  Intimidated! 

"  This  is  Lazv  and  Order! 
'•'•Brave  Girls  Parading  the  City! 

••  The    Laiv    and    Order   Beast  Frightens    the    Hungry 
Children  aicav  -±uith  Clubs! 


"  GENERAL  NEWS. 

"  Six  months  ago,  when  the  eight-hour  movement 
began,  there  were  speakers  and  journals  of  the  I.  A.  A. 
who  proclaimed  and  wrote:  '  Workmen,  if  you  want  to  see 
the  eight-hour  system  introduced,  arm  yourself.  If  you  do 
not  do  this  you  will  be  sent  home  with  bloody  heads  and 
birds  will  sing  May  songs  upon  your  graves.'  ('That 
is  nonsense,'  was  the  reply.)  '  If  the  workmen  are  organ- 
ganized  they  will  gain  the  eight  hours  in  their  Sunday 
clothes.  Well,  what  do  you  say  now?  Were  we  right 
or  wrong?  Would  the  occurrence  of  yesterday  have 
been  possible  if  our  advice  had  been  followed? 

"  Wage-workers,  yesterday  the  police  of  this  city  mur- 
dered at  the  McCormick  factory,  so  far  as  it  can  now  be 
ascertained,  four  of  your  brothers,  and  wounded,  more  or 
less  seriously,  some  twenty-five  more.  If  brothers  who 
defended  themselves  with  stones  (a  few  of  them  had 
little  snappers  in  the  shape  of  revolvers)  had  been  pro- 
vided with  good  weapons  and  one  single  dynamite  bomb, 
not  one  of  the  murderers  would  have  escaped  his  ivell  mer- 
ited fate.  As  it  was  only  four  of  them  were  disfigured. 
That  is  too  bad.  The  massacre  of  yesterday  took  place 
in  order  to  fill  the  forty  thousand  workmen  of  this  city 
with  fear  and  terror — took  place  in  order  to  force  back 
into  the  yoke  of  slavery  the  laborers  who  had  become 
dissatisfied  and  mutinous.  Will  they  succeed  in  this? 
Will  they  not  find  at  last  that  they  miscalculated?  The 
near  future  will  answer  this  question.  We  will  not  an- 
ticipate the  course  of  events  with  surmises. 

"  The  employes  in  the  lumber  yards  on  the  south  side 
held  a  meeting  yesterday  afternoon  at  the  Black  road, 
about  one-quarter  mile  north  of  McCormick's  factory, 
for  the  purpose  of  adapting  resolutions  in  regard  to  their 
demands,  and  to  appoint  a  committee  to  -wait  upon  a  com- 
mittee of  lumber  yard  owners  and  present  the  demands 
•which  had  been  agreed  upon. 

"  It  was  a  gigantic  mass  that  had  gathered.  Several 
members  of  the  lumber  yard  union  made  short  addresses 
in  English,  Bohemian,  German  and  Polish.  Mr.  Fchling 
attempted  to  speak,  but  ivhen  the  crowd  learned  that  he  was 
a  socialist,  he  was  stoned  and  compelled  to  leave  the  impro- 
vised speakers'  stand  on  a  freight  car.  Then,  after  a  few 


154 

more  addresses  were  made,  the  president  introduced  Mr. 
August  Spies,  who  had  been  invited  as  a  speaker.  A 
Pole  or  Bohemian  cried  out,  '  That  is  a  socialist ! '  and 
again  there  arose  a  storm  of  disapprobation,  and  a  roaring 
•noise,  "which  proved  sufficiently  that  these  ignorant  people 
had  been  incited  against  the  socialists  by  their  priests.  But 
the  speaker  did  not  lose  his  presence  of  mind.  He  con- 
tinued speaking,  and  very  soon  the  utmost  quiet  prevailed. 
He  told  them  that  they  must  realize  their  strength  over 
against  a  little  handful  of  lumber  yard  owners;  that  they 
must  not  recede  from  the  demands  once  made  by  them; 
the  issue  lay  in  their  hands;  all  they  needed  was  resolu- 
tion, and  the  '  bosses  '  would  be  compelled  to,  and  would 
give  in; 

"  At  this  moment  some  persons  in  the  background  cried 
out -(either  in  Polish  or  Bohemian),  '  On  to  McCormick's! 
Let  us  drive  off  the  scabs!'  About  two  hundred  men 
left  the  crowd  and  ran  towards  McCormick's. 

"  The  speaker  did  not  know  what  was  the  matter,  and 
continued  his  speech.  When  he  had  finished,  he  was  ap- 
pointed a  member  of  a  committee  to  notify  the  'bosses' 
that  the  strikers  had  no  concessions  to  make.  Then  a 
Pole  spoke.  While  he  spoke  a  patrol  wagon  rushed  up 
towards  McCormick's.  The  crowd  began  to  break  up. 
In  about  three  minutes  several  shots  were  heard  near  Mc- 
Cormick's factory,  and  these  were  followed  by  others.  At 
the  same  time  about  seventy-five  well-fed,  large  and  strong 
murderers,  under  the  command  of  a  fat  police  lieutenant, 
were  marching  toward  the  factory,  and  on  their  heels  fol- 
lowed three  patrol  wagons  besides,  full  of  law  and  order 
beasts;  200  policemen  were  on  the  spot  in  less  than  ten 
or  fifteen  minutes,  and  the  firing  on  fleeing  workingmen 
and  women  resembled  a  promiscous  bush-hunt.  77ie 
^vriter  of  this  hastened  to  the  factory  as  soon  as  the  first 
shots  -were  fired,  and  a  comrade  urged  the  assembly  to  hasten 
to  the  rescue  of  their  brothers  who  'were  being  murdered, 
but  no  one  stirred.  '  What  do  we  care  for  that?  '  was  the 
stupid  answer  of  poltroons  brought  up  in  cowardice.  The 
writer  fell  in  with  a  young  Irisman  who  knew  him. 

'  What  miserable  sons  of  b are  those,'  he  shouted  to 

him,  '  who  will  not  turn  a  hand  while  their  brothers  are 
being  shot  down  in  cold  blood?  We  have  dragged  away 


two.  I  think  they  are  dead.  If  you  have  any  influence 
with  the  people,  tor  Heaven's  sake,  run  back  and  urge 
them  to  follow  you.'  The  -writer  ran  back.  He  im- 
plored the  people  to  come  along — those  -who  had  revolvers 
in  their  -pockets,  but  it  was  in  vain.  With  an  exasperating 
indifference  they  put  their  hands  in  their  pockets  and 
marched  home,  babbling'  as  if  the  tvhole  affair  did  not  con- 
cern them  in  the  least.  The  revolvers  were  still  cracking, 
and  fresh  detachments  of  police,  here  and  there  bom- 
barded with  stones,  were  hastening  to  the  battle  ground. 
The  battle  was  lost! 

"  It  was  in  the  neighborhood  of  half  past  3  o'clock 
when  the  little  crowd  of  between  two  and  three  hundred 
men  reached  McCormick's  factory.  Policeman  West 
tried  to  hold  them  back  with  his  revolver.  A  shower  of 
stones  for  an  answer  put  him  to  flight.  He  was*  so 
roughly  handled  that  he  was  afterwards  found  about  100 
paces  from  the  place,  half  dead  and  groaning  fearfully. 
The  small  crowd  shouted:  'Get  out,  you  d — d  scab,' 
'  you  miserable  traitors,'  and  bombarded  the  factory  win- 
dow with  stones.  The  little  guard-house  was  demolished. 
The  '  scabs  '  were  in  mortal  terror,  when  at  this  moment 
the  Hinman  street  patrol  wagon,  summoned  by  telephone, 
came  rattling  along  with  thirteen  murderers.  When  they 
were  about  to  make  an  immediate  attack  with  their  clubs 
they  were  received  with  a  shower  of  stones.  'Back! 
Disperse!'  cried  the  lieutenant,  and  the  next  minute  there 
was  a  report.  The  gang  had  fired  on  the  strikers.  They 
pretend  subsequently  that  they  shot  over  their  heads. 
But,  be  that  as  it  may,  a  few  of  the  strikers  had  little 
snappers  of  revolvers,  and  with  these  returned  the  fire. 
In  the  meantime,  other  detachments  had  arrived,  and  the 
whole  band  of  murderers  now  opened  fire  on  the  little 
company — 20,000,  as  estimated  by  the  police  organ,  the 
Herald — while  the  whole  assembly  scarcely  numbered 
8,000!  Such  lies  are  told.  With  their  weapons,  mainly 
stones,  the  people  fought  with  admirable  bravery.  They 
laid  out  half  a  dozen  blue  coats,  and  their  round  bellies, 
developed  to  extreme  fatness  in  idleness  and  luxury,  tum- 
bled about,  groaning  on  the  ground.  Four  of  the  fellows 
are  said  to  be  very  dangerously  wounded;  many  others, 
alas!  escaped  with  lighter  injuries.  (The  gang,  of  course, 


'56 

conceals  this,  just  as  in  '77  they  carefully  concealed  the 
number  of  those  who  were  made  to  bite  the  dust.)  But 
it  looked  worse  on  the  side  of  the  defenseless  workmen. 
Dozens  who  had  received  slight  shot  wounds  hastened 
away  amid  the  bullets  which  were  sent  after  them.  The 
gang,  as  always,  fired  upon  the  fleeing,  while  women  and 
men  carried  away  the  severely  wounded.  How  many  were 
really  injured  and  how  many  were  mortally  wounded  could 
not  be  determined  with  certainty,  but  we  think  we  are  not 
mistaken  when  we  place  the  number  of  mortally  wounded 
at  about  six  and  those  slightly  injured  at  two  dozen.  We 
know  of  four,  one  of  whom  was  shot  in  the  spleen,  another 
in  the  forehead,  another  in  the  breast,  and  another 
in  the  thigh.  A  dying  boy,  Joseph  Doedick,  was  brought 
home  on  an  express  wagon  by  two  policemen.  The 
people  did  not  see  the  dying  boy;  they  saw  only  the  two 
murderers.  'Lynch  the  rascals! '  clamored  the  crowd. 
The  fellows  wanted  to  break  away  and  hide  themselves; 
but  in  vain.  They  had  already  thrown  a  rope  around  the 
neck  of  one  of  them,  when  a  patrol  wagon  rattled  into 
the  midst  of  the  crowd  and  prevented  the  praiseworthy 
deed.  Joseph  H ess,  who  had  put  the  rope  around  his  neck, 
was  arrested. 

"  The  scabs  were  afterwards  conducted  under  the  pro- 
tection of  a  strong  escort  down  Blue  Island  avenue. 
Women  and  children  gave  vent  to  their  indignation  in  an- 
gry shouts;  rotten  eggs  whizzed  through  the  air.  The 
men  about  took  things  coolly  and  smoked  their  pipes  as  on 
Kirmess  day. 

"  McCormick's  assistant,  Superintendent  C.  J.  Bemly, 
was  also  wounded,  and,  indeed,  quite  severely. 

"The  following  strikers  were  arrested:  Ignatz  Erban, 
Frank  Kohling,  Joseph  Schuky,  Thomas  Klafski,  John 
Patolski,  Anton  Sevieski,  Albert  Supitar,  Hugh  McWhif- 
ter,  Anton  Sternack,  Nick  Wolna  and  Thomas  O'Con- 
nell. 

"  The  '  pimp,'  McCormick,  when  asked  what  he 
thought  of  it,  said:  *  August  Spies  made  a  speech  to  a 
few  thousand  anarchists.  It  occurred  to  one  of  these  brill- 
iant heads  to  frighten  our  men  away.  He  put  himself 
at  the  head  of  a  crowd,  which  then  made  an  attack  upon 
our  works.  Our  workmen  fled,  and  in  the  meantime  the 


police  came  and  sent  a   lot  of  anarchists  away  with  bleed- 
ing heads.' 

'•'•Last  night  thousands  of  copies  of  the  following  circular 
were  distributed  in  all  parts  of  the  city"  (And  then  fol- 
lowed the  German  portion  of  the  Revenge  circular,  a  trans- 
lation of  which  appears  in  the  brief  under  that  title.) 

One  of  the  portions  of  the  speech  made  by  Spies  at 
the  Haymarket,  taken  in  shorthand  by  G.  P.  English,  is 
as  follows  (K,  276): 

"I  want  to  tell  you,  gentlemen,  that  these  acts  of  vio- 
lence are  the  natural  outcome  of  the  degradation  and  the 
oppression  to  which  the  working  people  are  subjected.  I 
was  addressing  a  meeting  of  ten  thousand  wage  slaves 
yesterday  afternoon  in  the  neighborhood  of  McCormick's. 
They  did  not  want  me  to  speak.  The  most  of  them  were 
good,  church-going  people.  They  did  not  want  me  to  speak 
because  1  was  a  socialist.  They  wanted  to  tear  me  down 
from  the  car,  but  1  spoke  to  them  and  told  them  they  must 
stick  together.  They  were  not  anarchists,  but  were  good 
church-going  people.  They  were  good  Christians.  Then 
the  patrol  wagons  came,  and  blood  was  shed." 


(C.)     THE    REVENGE    CIRCULAR. 

English  portion  of  Revenge  circular: 

(i.)     "  REVENGE. 

"   Worktngmen,  to  Arms! ! 

"  The  masters  sent  out  their  blood-hounds — the  police; 
they  killed  six  of  your  brothers  at  McCormick's  this  after- 
noon. They  killed  the  poor  wretches,  because  they,  like  you, 
had  the  courage  to  disobey  the  supreme  will  of  your  bosses. 
They  killed  them  because  they  dared  ask  for  the  shorten- 
ing of  the  hours  of  toil.  They  killed  them  to  show;  you, 
*  free  American  citizens?  that  you  must  be  satisfied  and 
contented  with  whatever  your  bosses  condescend  to  allow 
you,  or  you  will  get  killed! 


158 

"  You  have  for  years  endured  the  most  ahject  humilia- 
tions; you  have  for  years  suffered  un measurable  iniqui- 
ties; you  have  worked  yourself  to  death;  you  have  en- 
dured the  pangs  of  want  and  hunger;  your  children  you 
have  sacrificed  to  the  factory  lord — in  short,  you  have 
been  miserable  and  obedient  servants  all  these  years! 
Why?  to  satisfy  the  insatiable  greed,  to  fill  the 
coffers  of  your  lazy  theiving  masters!  When  you  ask 
them  now  to  lessen  your  burdens,  he  sends  his  blood- 
hounds out  to  shoot  you — kill  you!  If  you  'are  men,  if 
you  are  the  sons  of  your  grandsires,  zuho  have  shed  their 
blood  to  free  you,  then  you  -will  rise  in  your  might,  Hercu- 
les, and  destroy  the  hideous  monster  that  seeks  to  destroy 
you.  To  arms,  we  call  you,  to  arms!  Four  brothers.'1'' 

A  translation  of  the  German  part  of  Revenge  Circular 
is  as  follows: 

"REVENGE!    REVENGE! 

"  Workmen,  to  Arms  / 

"  Men  of  labor,  this  afternoon  the  blood-hounds  of 
your  oppressors  murdered  six  of  your  brothers  at  Me- 
Cormick's.  Why  did  they  murder  them?  Because  they 
dared  to  be  dissatisfied  with  the  lot  which  your  oppress- 
ors have  assigned  to  them.  They  demanded  bread,  and 
they  gave  them  lead  for  an  answer,  mindful  of  the  fact 
that  thus  people  are  most  effectually  silenced.  You  have 
for  many,  many  years  endured  every  humiliation  without 
protest,  have  drudged  from  early  in  the  morning  till  late 
at  night,  have  suffered  all  sorts  of  privations,  have  even 
sacrificed  your  children.  You  have  done  everything  to 
fill  the  coffers  of  your  masters — everything  for  them! 
and  now,  when  you  approach  them  and  implore  them  to 
make  your  burden  a  little  lighter,  as  a  reward  for  your 
sacrifices,  they  send  their  blood-hounds,  the  police,  at  you, 
in  order  to  cure  you  with  bullets  of  your  dissatisfaction. 
Slaves,  we  ask  and  conjure  you,  by  all  that  is  sacred  and 
dear  to  you,  avenge  the  atrocious  murder  which  has  been 
committed  upon  your  brothers  to-day,  and  which  will 
likely  be  committed  upon  you  to-morrow.  Laboring 
men,  Hercules,  you  have  arrived  at  the  crossway.  Which 
•way  -will  you  decide  f  For  slavery  and  hunger,  or  for 


freedom  and  bread?  If  you  decide  for  the  latter,  then  do 
do  not  delay  a  moment;  then,  people,  to  arms!  Annihila- 
tion to  the  beasts  in  human  form  who  call  themselves  rulers! 
Uncompromising  annihilation  to  them!  This  must  be 
your  motto.  Think  of  the  heroes  zuhose  blood  has  fertilized 
the  road  to  progress,  liberty  and  humanity,  and  strive  to 
become  worthy  of  them! 

"  YOUR  BROTHERS." 


(2.)     SPIES  WROTE  IT. 

x 

It  appears  from  the  evidence  of  Theodore  Fricke 
(I,  468)  that  the  manuscript  for  both  the  English  and  the 
German  of  the  Revenge  circular  was  in  the  handwriting 
of  the  defendant,  August  Spies,  with  the  exception  that 
the  word  "  Revenge  "  which  appears  at  the  head  of  the 
English  portion  was  not  written  by  him.  The  word 
"  Rache,"  the  German  word  for  revenge,  at  the  head  of 
the  German  portion  of  the  circular,  was  written  by  him. 
Spies  admits  in  evidence  that  he  wrote  this  circular. 


(3.)     ITS  PRINTING  AND  CIRCULATION. 


HERMAN  PODEVA  testified  (J,  349)  that  he  was 
a  compositor  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office;  that  he  set 
up  a  portion  of  the  Revenge  circular;  that  five  or  six 
printers  were  engaged  in  setting  it  up;  that  they  usually 
quit  work  at  5  o'clock,  but  that  night  worked  until  6 
o'clock.  He  also  testified  that  the  manuscript  of  the 
English  portion  of  the  article  did  not  contain  the  word 
"  Revenge";  that  it  was  headed  "To  Arms,  Working- 
"  men,  to  Arms!  "  but  that  when  the  printers  came  to  set 


i6o 

it  up  it  did  not  look  well  in  type,  and  so  they  substituted 
the  word  "  Revenge  "  in  the  place  of  the  phrase  "  To 
Arms." 

"  The  opinion  was  expressed  that  the  short  word  '  To ' 
and  the  longer  word  'Arms'  did  not  look  well;  that 
another  longer  word  should  be  used,  which  would  give 
it  a  better  appearance.  And  of  course  it  was  added  that 
whatever  should  take  the  place  of  it  should  express  the 
same  idea  as  the  preceding  word.  It  was  also  said  that 
of  course  the  writer  of  the  circular  should  read  the  -proof, 
and  that  he  would  either  take  out  the  word  '  Revenge  ' 
or  leave  it  remain  there." 

GEORGE  ASCHENBRENNER  testified  (J,  337),  that  he 
was  assistant  foreman  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  printing 
office;  that  he  saw  the  men  setting  up  the  "Revenge" 
circular  in  the  office  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung.  After  it 
was  set  up  he  went  over  to  Burgess'  establishment,  and, 
in  printer's  parlance,  "locked  the  form"  for  the  circular 
at  that  place. 

GEORGE  SCHULER  testified  (J,  279)  that  he  was  em- 
ployed as  a  printer  by  Mr.  Burgess;  that  on  Monday 
afternoon,  the  3d  of  May,  between  5  and  6  o'clock,  a 
form  of  the  circular  was  brought  over  from  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung  office  containing  both  the  English  and  the  Ger- 
man portions,  about  2,500  copies  of  which  were  struck  off 
that  night;  that  about  a  dozen  different  -parties  came  there 
after  tJiem,  coming  one  and  two  at  a  time,  taking  it  as  fast 
as  it  came  from  the  press. 

ERNST  NIENDORFF  testified  (J,  228)  that  he  was  the 
president  of  a  meeting  of  the  carpenters  which  met  in 
Zepf's  Hall  on  West  Lake  street  on  Monday  night;  that 
there  were  from  eight  hundred  to  a  thousand  persons 
present;  that  the  "Revenge"  circular  was  distributed  at 


that  meeting  between  9  and  10  o'clock;  by  whom  distrib- 
uted the  witness  could  not  say. 

FRANZ  HEUN,  a  saloon  keeper,  testified  (J,  185)  that 
the  defendant  Neebe  on  Monday  evening  came  to  his 
saloon  and  distributed  a  number  of  copies  of  the  "  Re- 
venge "  circular.  "  He  came  in  and  showed  me  that 
"  thing  (referring  to  '  Revenge'  circular),  and  he  asked 
"  me  if  I  heard  something  about  the  McCormick  riot;  and 
"  I  said,  '  Yes,  I  read  it '  ;  and  then  he  showed  me  that, 
"  and  he  said,  '  It  is  a  shame  that  the  police  act  that  way, 
"  but  may  be  the  time  comes  that  it  goes  the  other  way— 
"  that  they  get  a  chance  too ';  he  was  mad  on  account  of 
"  that."  *  *  *  He  said,  "  That  (the  '  Revenge  ' 
"  circular)  is  just  printed  now."  At  that  time  when  he 
came  in  he  said  that. 

HILL  C.  SMYTHE,  a  reporter  for  the  Tribune,  who  spent 
the  whole  of  the  3d  of  May  in  the  vicinity  of  Greif's 
Hall,  testified  (J,  368)  that  a  few  minutes  after  6 
o'clock  on  Monday  afternoon  he  was  standing  in  the  door- 
way of  the  entrance  of  54  West  Lake  street,  talking  with 
Greif,  the  proprietor  of  the  hall,  when  his  attention  was 
attracted  by  seeing  a  few  of  the  circulars  flying  in  the 
air,  and  he  picked  one  up  and  read  it.  Just  at  that  time 
he  -saw  a  horseman,  and  the  distribution  of  the  circular  was 
coincident  with  the  appearance  of  the  horseman  in  front  of 
54.  West  Lake  street,  *  *  *  "  My  impression  was  that 
"  the  horse  was  ridden  west  on  Lake  street.  *  *  *  At 
"  9  or  half-past  9  nearly  every  one  there  had  a  copy  of 
•"  the  circular."  *  *  *  '  They  were  very  scarce  at  8 
"  o'clock,  and  a  reporter  for  the  Inter  Ocean  and  myself 
"  sat  at  a  table  in  Greif's  Hall  and  copied  the  English 
•"  portion  of  this  circular,  but  an  hour  or  so  afterwards  we 


162 

"  both  succeeded  in  getting  copies  of  them.     They  were 
"  handed  around." 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  it  appears  from  the  article 
written  by  Spies,  entitled  "  Blood,"  which  is  set  out  out  on 
page  1 52,  that  thousands  of  these  circulars  were  distributed; 
and  in  addition  thereto  the  German  pbrtion  of  the  circular 
was  reprinted  in  the  article,  and  by  that  means  was  dis- 
tributed to  its  thousands  of  readers. 


(D.)     THE  MEETING  AT  GREIF'S  HALL. 

GOTTFRIED  WALLER  testified  (I,  54):  That  on  the 
evening  of  the  3d  of  May  he  was  present  at  a  meeting  in 
Greif's  Hall,  54  West  Lake  street;  he  had  not  worked 
that  day;  went  to  the  meeting  about  half-past  8  o'clock 
because  he  had  seen  the  notice  in  the  "  briefkasten  "  or 
"  letter-box  "  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  "  Y,  come  Monday 
night,"  which  meant  that  at  that  time  there  would  be  a 
meeting  of  the  armed  section  at  Greif's  Hall.  The  meet- 
ing was  held  in  the  basement,  beginning  at  half-past  8; 
seventy  or  eighty  men  were  present;  some  one  called  out 
the  name  of  the  witness,  whereupon  he  called  the  meeting 
to  order.  The  audience  sat  in  the  front  part  of  the  base- 
ment; one  of  those  present,  Breitenfeld,  who  was  a  com- 
mander in  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein  of  Chicago,  was 
stationed  at  the  back  stairway.  Of  the  defendants,  Engel 
and  Fischer  were  present.  The  "  Revenge  "  circular  was 
distributed.  "  First  it  was  talked  about  that  at  McCor- 
"  mick's  six  men  had  been  killed.  Then  we  had  a  dis- 
"  cussion  as  to  what  should  be  done  in  the  next  two 
"  days.  *  * 


163 

"  Engel  said  that  if  on  account  of  the  eight-hour  strike 
"  now  going  on  there  should  be  a  difficulty  between  the 
"  police  and  the  workingmen,  then  we  should  meet  at 
"  certain  meeting  places  to  come  to  the  rescue  of  those 
"  attacked  by  the  police.  Then  he  told  us  that  the  north- 
*'  west  side  group  had  resolved  as  to  that,  that  if  on  ac- 
"  count  of  the  workingmen,  the  strikers,  something  should 
"  happen  to  the  police,  that  we  should  gather  at  certain 
"  corners  or  meeting  places;  then  the  word  'Ruhe  '  (trans- 
"  lated  as  'quiet,'  or  'rest  '),5f  that  was  ordered  to  be 
"  published — if  that  was  to  appear,  it  would  be  the  time 
"  to  meet." 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  about  where  the  word  '  Ruhe  ' 
should  be  published? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     Where  was  it  to  be  published? 

"  A.  In  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  in  the  letter  box. 
*  *  *  *  Engel  said:  '•If  there  -were  tumults  in 
the  city,  then  -we  should  meet  at  Wicker  Park;  if  that 
should  appear  in  the  paper — the  word  "  Ruhe  " — then  the 
north-west  side  group  and  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein  of 
the  north-west  side  should  assemble  in  Wicker  Park  armed,'' 
Then  a  committee  was  appointed  to  watch  the  movement 
in  the  city,  and  if  something  happened  they  should  report; 
if  a  riot  should  occur  we  should  first  storm  the  police  sta- 
tions and  cut  the  telegraph  wires. 

"  Q.     Who  should  cut  the  telegraph  wires? 

"  A.  That  was  not  provided  for.  And  then,  after  we 
Jiad  stormed  the  -police  stations,  we  should  shoot  down  every- 
thing that  would  come  out,  and  by  that  we  thought  to  gain 
accessions  from  the  workingmen,  and  then  if  that  police 
station  was  stormed  we  should  do  the  same  thing  in  re- 
gard to  the  second,  and  whatever  would  come  in  our  way 
we  should  strike  down,  and  that  is  about  all. 

"  Q.     What  police  station  was  referred  to? 

"  A.     First,  that  on  North  avenue. 

"  Q.     What  next? 

"  A.  About  the  second  police  station  there  was  noth- 
ing said.  Just  as  it  happened. 


164 

"  Q.     Was  anything  said  about  dynamite  or  bombs? 

"  A.     Yes. 

«  Q.     What? 

"  A.  It  would  be  the  easiest  mode — throwing  a  bomb 
in  the  station. 

"  Q.     Who  said  that? 

"  A.  Mr.  Engel.  *  *  *  There  should  be  a  meet- 
ing of  the  •working' men  the  next  day,  that  would  be  Tues- 
day. 

"  Q.     Who  said  that? 

"A.  I  said  that.  And  that  was  rejected — the  meeting  to 
be  held  in  the  morning — and  a  meeting  was  called  for  the 
evening. 

"  Q.  Who  said  anything  about  calling  a  meeting  for 
the  evening? 

"  A.  Mr.  Fischer.  *  *  *  /  had  proposed  Mar- 
ket square,  and  then  Fischer  said  that  -was  a  mouse-trap; 
that  it  should  be  on  the  Hay  market,  because  in  the  evening 
there  would  be  more  workingmen  there,  and  because 
people  were  at  work  late,  and  then  it  was  resolved  that 
the  meeting  should  be  at  8  o'clock  in  the  evening  at  the 
Haymarket. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  about  what  should  take  place 
at  that  meeting?  At  the  Haymarket  meeting? 

"  A.     Yes. 

«  Q.     What? 

"A.  To  cheer  up  the  workingmen,  so  that  if  some- 
thing should  happen  the  next  day  they  should  be  prepared 
*  *  *  if  a  conflict  should  happen." 

The  witness  said  it  was  agreed  that  the  meeting  should 
be  annouficed  through  a  handbill  which  Fischer  was  com- 
missioned to  print,  to  announce  a  mass-meeting;  Fischer 
left  the  meeting  to  have  it  printed,  and  was  gone  about 
half  an  hour  and  came  back  and  said  the  printing  estab- 
lishment was  closed. 

"  It  was  said  that  we  ourselves  should  not  participate  in 
the  meeting  on  the  Haymarket.  We  should  meet  at  the 
respective  places.  Only  a  committee  should  be  present  at 
the  Haymarket,  and  if  they  should  report  that  something 


had  happened,  then  we  should  come  down  upon  them 
and  attack  them. 

"  Q.     Should  attack  them  where,  and  attack  who? 

"  A.  Every  group  had  to  look  out,  had  to  arrange  for 
that  themselves. 

"  Q.     Should  attack  who? 

"  A.     Our  opponents — our  adversaries. 

"  Q.  Who  were  the  opponents  mentioned  in  the  meet- 
ing? 

"  A.     First,  the  -police. 

"  Q.     Who  else? 

"  A.  The  police  and  the  militia — whoever  should  conic 
against  us. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  at  the  meeting  as  to  who 
should  be  attacked? 

"  A.  1'es;  first,  ive  were  to  attack  the  police  station — 
the  North  avenue  police  station — and  then  the  next  one,  as 
fate  would  have  it. 

"  Q.  Was  there  anything  said  as  to  what  should  be 
done  in  case  the  police  interfered  with  the  Haymarket 
meeting? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  as  to  why  the  police  stations 
in  the  different  parts  of  the  town  should  be  attacked? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     What  was  that? 

"  A.  We  have  seen  how  the  police  oppressed  the 
workingmen;  how  the  capitalists  oppressed  the  working- 
men,  and  that  six  men  were  killed  at  McCormick's,  and 
that  we  should  commence  to  take  the  rights  in  our  own 
hands. 

"  Q.     Who  said  that? 

"  A.     It  was  said  by  several.     We  discussed  about  it. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  as  to  why  the  police  stalion 
should  be  attacked — as  to  that  particular  time? 

"  A.  Yes;  it  was  planned  to  attack  the  police  stations 
to  prevent  the  police  from  coming  to  aid. 

"  Q.     Coming  to  aid  what? 

"  A.     If  there  should  be  a  fight  in  the  city. 

"  Q.  Was  there  anything  said  about  there  being  a 
fight  in  the  city? 


i66 

"  A.  There  was  nothing  said  about  it;  but  we  sup- 
posed so. 

"  Q.     Who  thought  so? 

"  A.     All  of  us. 

"  Q.  Did  the  meeting  over  which  you  presided  take 
any  action  in  regard  to  the  plan  which  you  have  been 
narrating? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     What  action  did  the  meeting  take? 

"  A.  The  plan  was  adopted,  with  the  understanding 
that  every  group  ought  to  act  independently,  according  to 
the  general  plan. 

"  Q.  How  many  members  were  present  at  the  time 
the  plan  was  adopted? 

"  A.     Seventy  or  eighty. 

"  Q.      Were  they  all  from  the  north-west  group? 

"  A.     No;  they  were  from  all  of  the  groups. 

*'  Q.     From  what  parts  of  the  city? 

"  A.  From  the  west  side  and  from  the  south  side,  and 
from  the  north  side. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  at  the  meeting  as  to  what 
should  be  done  at  other  parts  of  the  city  than  the  north 
side  or  the  north-west  side? 

"A.     The  same  should  be. done. 

"  Q.  What  was  said,  if  anything,  as  to  what  should  be 
done  in  case  the  police  should  attempt  to  disperse  the 
Hay  market  meeting? 

"  A.  There  was  nothing  said  about  the  Haymarket. 
There  was  nothing  expected  that  the  police  would  get  to 
the  Haymarket,  only  if  the  strikers  were  attacked  then 
we  should  shoot  the  police. 

"  Q.     What  else? 

"  A.  In  that  case  we  should  simply  strike  them  down 
however  we  best  could,  with  bombs  or  whatever  would 
be  at  our  disposition. 

"  Q.  From  where  was  the  committee,  or  of  whom 
was  the  committee  to  be  composed,  which  was  to  be  sent 
to  the  Haymarket  square? 

"  A.     One  or  huo  from  each  group. 

"  Q.      What  were  they  to  do  f 

"  A.  They  should  observe  the  movement  not  only  on  the 
Haymarket  square,  but  in  the  different  -parts  of  the  city, 


167 

and  if  a  conflict  should  happen  then  they  should  report  to 
us. 

"  Q.     Should  report  to  whom? 

"A.  If  it  happened  in  the  day-time  then  they  should 
cause  the  publication  of  the  word  '  RuheS 

"  Q.  If  it  happened  in  the  night-time  to  whom  were 
they  to  make  their  report? 

"  A.  Then  they  should  report  personally  to  the  mem- 
bers. 

"  Q.     Where  were  they  to  find  the  members? 

"  A.     At  home. 

"  Q.      What  was  the  meaning  of  the  word  'Ruhe?' 

"  A.  On  that  day  we  did  not  understand  it  ourselves 
—why  the  word  '  Ruhe '  was  in  there. 

"  Q.  In  the  meeting  was  anything  said  as  to  what  the 
word  'Ruhe'  should  mean  if  published? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     What  was  said  about  it? 

"  A.  It  should  be  an  indication  that  we  should  have 
to  meet  here  and  there.  The  word  '  Ruhe '  should  only 
be  inserted  in  the  newspaper  if  a  downright  revolution  had 
occurred. 

"  Q.     Who  said  that? 

"  A.     That  was  in  the  plan. 

"  Q.     Who  first  mentioned  it  at  the  meeting? 

"  A.  Fischer  flrst  called  the  attention  of  the  meeting  to 
the  word  '  Ruhe? 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  as  to  where  the  word  '  Ruhe  ' 
was  to  be  published? 

"  A.  Yes,  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  under  the  head  of 
the  'letter-box." 

"  Q.  Was  there  anything  said  as  to  who  would  see 
that  it  was  published  there? 

"  A.      The  committee. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  as  to  who  would  take  it  to 
the  Arbeiter  Zeitung? 

"  A.  No;  it  was  the  business  of  the  committee  to  attend 
to  it. 

"  Q.     Who  comprised  the  committee? 

"  A.     I  know  only  one  of  them. 

"  Q.     Who  was  that? 

'«  A.     Kraemer." 


i68 

On  motion  of  Engel,  the  meeting,  by  a  show  of  hands, 
unanimously  adopted  the  plan. 

"  Q.  After  the  plan  of  the  north-west  group  had  been 
adopted  by  the  meeting,  did  you  state  that  plan  to  any 
one  at  the  meeting? 

"  A.  It  was  said  that  this  plan  should  be  communi- 
cated to  such  reliable  men  that  were  absent. 

"  Q.  Did  you  repeat  that  plan  to  any 'one  who  came 
into  the  meeting  after  the  meeting  had  adopted  it? 

« A.     Yes." 

At  that  meeting  there  were  present  known  to  the  wit- 
ness, as  far  as  he  could  recollect,  Fischer,  Engel,  Breiten- 
feld,  Reinhardt,  Kreuger  and  another  Kreuger,  Green- 
vvald,  Schroeder,  Weber,  Huebner,  Lehmann,  Hermann 
(Heumann)  and  Schnaubelt. 

"  Q,  (PageiO2.)      What   is  Schnaubelt's  first  name? 

"  A.  As  much  as  I  know,  it  is  Rudolph. 

"  Q.  Look  at  the  photograph  I  now  show  you  {Peo- 
ple's Exhibit  No.  9). 

"  A.  That  is  Schnaubelt. 

"  Q.  Did  Schnaubelt  say  anything  at. that  meeting? 

"  A.  Yes, 

"  Q.  What  did  he  say? 

"A.  He  said  that  we  should  inform  our  membeisin 
other  places  of  the  resolution. 

"  Q.  Did  he  say  anything  else? 

"  A.  He  said  that  the  thing's  should  commence  in  other 
places. 

"Q.  What  things? 

"  A.  //.  He  said  that  it  should  also  commence  at  other 
places. 

"  Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  it? 

"  A.  The  revolution." 

The  witness  was  present  at  the  meeting  at  Emma 
street  at  10  o'clock  of  the  Sunday  previous  at  Bohemian 
Hall.  He  was  invited  by  August  Krueger  (the  little 
one).  Those  present  were  mostly  members  of  the 


i6p 

north-western  group;  some  members  of  the  Lehr  and 
Wehr  Verein;  there  were  Engel  and  Fischer  of  the  de- 
fendants, Greenevvald,  the  two  Kruegers,  Reinhardt,  and 
Schroeder,  known  to  witness. 

"  Q.     What  was  said  at  the  meeting? 

"  A.     The  same  that  I  stated  yesterday — Engel's  plan. 

"  Q.     Who  proposed  the  plan? 

"  A.     Engel. 

"  Q.     Now,  what  did  he  say? 

"  A.  He  submitted  a  plan  of  his  own  conception,  ac- 
cording to  which,  -whenever  it  would  come  to  a  conjlict  be- 
tween the  north-western  groups — he  had  submitted  it  to 
the  north-western  groups  also — according  to  which  plan, 
as  soon  as  it  came  to  a  conflict  between  the  police  and  the 
north-western  groups,  that  bombs  should  be  thrown  into  the. 
police  stations  and  the  riflemen  of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr 
Verein  should  post  themselves  in  line  in  a  certain  distance, 
and  whoever  would  come  out  should  be  shot  down. 

"  Q.     Come  out  of  where? 

"  A.  All  those  that  would  come  out  of  the  station  or 
stations,  he  said;  then  it  should  proceed  in  that  way  until 
we  wotild  come  to  the  heart  of  the  city. 

«  Q.     What  else?" 

"  A.  That  is  all.  Within  the  heart  of  the  city  of 
course  the  fight  should  commence  in  earnest. 

"  Q.     Did  anybody  else  say  anything? 

"  A.  There  was  some  opposition  disputes  against  the 
plan,  also. 

"  Q.      Who  opposed? 

"  A.     I  did  not  know  him  or  did  not  know  them. 

"  Q.  What  did  he  say — the  man  that  you  did  not 
know? 

"  A.  He  thought  that  there  was  too  few  of  us,  and  it 
^uould  be  no  better  if  we  would  place  ourselves  among'  the 
people  and  fight  right  in  the  midst  of  them. 

"  Q.     What  else  was  said? 

"  A.  There  was  some  opposition  to  that,  to  be  in  the 
midst  oj  the  crowd,  as  we  could  not  know  who  would  be  our 
nearest  neighbor  of  the  crowd;  there  might  be  a  detective 
right  near  us,  or  some  one  else. 

"  Q.     Was  there  anything  else  said  that  you  remember? 


170 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Did  the  meeting  take  any  action  on  those  plans?" 

"A.  The  -plan  was  finally  accepted. 

"Q.  Which  plan.' 

"  A.  The  plan  of  Engel. 

On  cross-examination  the  witness  stated: 

"  Q.  You  said  you  went  to  Greif 's  Hall  on  the  night 
of  May  3d,  pursuant  to  '  Y'  in  the  letter-box  of  the 
Arbeiter  Zeitung?  Is  that  so? 

"  A.  Yes,  but  I  did  not  want  to  go  there;  I  was  got- 
ten; somebody  came  for  me. 

"  Q.     Who  came  for  you? 

"  A.  A  member  of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein  by  the 
name  of  Clermond. 

"Q.  Who  requested  Engel  to  state  the  resolutions 
adopted  at  the  meeting  of  the  north-west  side  group  the 
day  before? 

"  A.  If  I  am  correct  he  stated  it  at  the  first  of  his  own 
accord;  the  second  time  I  had  requested  him  to  state  it, 
to  lay  it  before  the  meeting.  When  then  more  people 
came  to  the  meeting  I  requested  him  to  lay  it  before  the 
meeting  again. 

"  Q.  But  you  are  not  quite  sure  that  he  stated  those 
resolutions  of  his  own  accord? 

"  A.  /  am  sure  that  he  dreiv  them  up  the  Sunday 
before. 

"  Q.  I  have  not  been  talking  about  the  Sunday  meet- 
ing. I  was  talking  about  the  Monday  meeting.  Are  you 
quite  sure  that  he  laid  those  resolutions  before  the  meeting 
of  his  own  accord? 

"  A.      res. 

"  Q.  Now,  is  it  not  the  fact  that  Mr.  Engel,  both  at 
the  meeting  on  Monday  night  and  at  the  meeting  on  Sun- 
day, stated  that  this  plan  was  to  be  followed  in  case  the 
police  should  interfere  with  your  right  of  free  speech  and 
free  assembling  only? 

"  A.     If  the  police  should  attack  us. 

"  Q.  Did  he  not  say  that  that  plan  was  to  be  followed 
only  in  case  the  police  should  interfere  with  your  rights 
that  I  have  mentioned,  and  by  brutal  force? 


"  A.  It  was  said  that  at  any  time  whenever  we  should 
be  attacked  by  the  police  we  should  defend  ourselves. 

"  Q.  I  am  not  speaking  about  what  was  said  by  oth- 
ers. I  am  speaking  about  the  plan  laid  before  the  meet- 
ing by  Engel.  Did  he  not  say  that  plan  was  to  be  followed 
only  when  the  police  would,  by  brutal  force,  interfere 
with  your  right  of  free  assembly  and  free  speech? 

"  A.  It  was  said  that  we  should  use — should  resort  to 
this  plan  or  to  the  execution  of  it  whenever  it  would  suit 
us,  or  whenever  the  police  would  attack  us. 

"  Q.  The  witness  don't  get  the  point  of  the  question 
— whether  Engel  said  on  what  occasion  the  plan  was  to 
be  employed. 

"  A.     No,  he  did  not  say  that. 

"  Q.  Now,  you  say  that  you  made  the  motion  your- 
self, that  a  meeting  should  be  called  for  Tuesday  night? 

"  A.     No;  Tuesday  morning. 

"  Q.  But  you  first  made  the  proposition  that  a  meet- 
ing should  be  called  for  the  next  day.  Is  not  that  so? 

"A.  No,  I  did  not  make  that  proposition;  I  was 
chairman. 

"  Q.     Who  made  the  motion? 

"  A.  No;  I  simply  stated  that  it  would  be  good  to 
hold  a  meeting  the  next  morning  at  10  o'clock.  Who 
made  a  motion  I  cannot  now  remember,  but  it  was  voted 
down,  and  Engel,  or  Fischer,  then  made  the  proposition 
that  a  meeting  should  be  held  at  Haymarket  square  on 
the  following  night. 

"  Q.  And  you  say  that  nothing  was  said  at  the  Mon- 
day night  meeting  with  reference  to  any  action  to  be 
taken  by  you  on  the  Haymarket? 

"  A.  We  should  not  do  anything;  we  were  not  to  do 
anything  at  the  Haymarket  square. 

"  Q.  And  you  also  say  that  you  did  not  anticipate 
that  the  police  would  come  to  the  Haymarket? 

"  A.  We  did  not  think  that  the  police  would  come  to 
the  Haymarket. 

"  Q.  And  for  this  reason  no  preparations  were  made 
for  meeting  any  police  attack  on  the  Haymarket  square? 

"  A.     No;  not  by  us. 

"  Q.     And    you    say    that    the     word     '  Ruhe '     was 


172 

adopted  as  a  signal  to  call  all  the  members  of  the  armed 
section  to  their  meeting  places  in  case  of  a  downright 
revolution.  That  is  what  you  want  to  be  understood  as 
saying? 

"A.  //  -was  to  be  the  signal  to  bring  the  members  to- 
gether at  the  various  meetings  in  case  of  a  revolution;  but 
it  ivas  not  to  be  in  the  papers,  until  the  revolution  snould 
actually  take  place. 

"  Q.     Where  should  it  be  in  the  paper? 

"  A.  In  the  letter-box  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung. 

"  Q.  Was  not  it  expected  at  the  meeting  of  Monday 
night  that  there  should  be  a  gathering  of  about  twenty-jive 
thousand  people  at  the  Haymarketf 

"  A.      We  thought  so." 

BERNHARD  SCHRADE  testified  (I,  140)  that  he  was 
present  for  a  short  time  at  the  meeting  in  Grief's  base- 
ment. When  he  came  in,  Waller,  who  had  been  presid- 
ing, was  explaining  what  had  been  spoken  about  before. 
He  said,  in  explanation,  that  so  many  men  at  the  McCor- 
mick  factory  had  been  shot  dead  by  ihe  police.  He  said 
that  a  mass-meeting  was  to  be  held  at  the  Haymarket 
Square,  and  that  they  should  prepare  in  case  the  police 
should  interfere  or  go  beyond  their  bounds. 

The  witness  was  also  present  at  the  Sunday  meeting 
at  Bohemian  Hall;  the  big  Krueger  called  for  him.  Of 
those  present  there  were  known  to  witness  Waller,  Krue- 
ger, Fischer,  Engel  and  Greeneberg  ( Greene wald). 
Those  present  belonged  to  the  second  company  of  the 
Lehr  and  Wehr  Verein  and  to  the  north-western  group. 
The  condition  of  the  workingmen's  movement  was  talked 
over,  "  and  the  remark  was  made  that  it  might  not  go  off 
"  so  easy  after  the  ist  of  May,  and  if  it  should  not  they 
"  would  have  to  help  themselves  and  each  other.  * 

9|E  $  $  $  .9     .  41 

//  is  said  that  if  they  were  to  get  into  a  conflict  with 


'73 

the  police  that  they  were  to  mutually  assist  themselves 
to  make  an  attack    *     *     *     upon  the  police. 


"  Q>     What  was  said  about  Wicker  Park? 

"  A.  Well,  it  was  said  that  the  members  of  the  north- 
western group  should  go  there  in  case  it  should  go  so  far  as 
that  the  -police  would  make  an  attack. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  about  what  the  members  of 
the  north-western  group  should  do  if  there  was  any 
trouble  with  the  police? 

"A.  Yes;  it  was  explained  that  they  should  defend 
themselves  as  much  as  possible  if  it  should  come  to  that- 

"  Q.     How  should  they  defend  themselves? 

"  A.  As  well  as  any  one  could;  if  he  had  anything 
with  him  he  should  use  it." 

The  witness  heard  nothing  said  about  dynamite.  *  *  * 

"  The  revolutionary  movement  was  talked  about,  and  it 
was  remarked  that  the  firemen  could  do  much  in  such  a 
case.  *  *  *  It  was  said  that  if  a  large  mass  of  peo- 
ple were  standing  upon  the  street,  that  if  the  firemen 
came  they  could  easily  disperse  them. 

"Q.  Was  anything  said  as  to  what  should  be  done 
with  the  firemen  in  such  a  case? 

"A.  Well,  it  was  said  the  best  thing  to  annihilate  them, 
or  to  cut  through  their  hose,  and  so  forth,  that  they  could 
not  do  anything.'1'' 

The  witness  was  present  at  the  Haymarket. 

On  cross-examination  he  testified: 

"  Q.  Did  you  know  any  one  was  going  to  take  a  bomb 
to  that  meeting? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.  Did  you  know  there  would  be  trouble  there  at 
that  meeting,  or  expect  there  would  be  trouble  at  that 
meeting? 

"  A.  Well,  J knew  that  much,  that  when  the  police  should, 
come  to  attack  the  workingmen  that  each  one  should  help 
themselves  the  best  way  they  could. 

"  Q.     And  you  did  not  expect  any  trouble? 


"  A.  Well,  not  beyond  that  when  the  police  would  at- 
tack we  knew  there  would  be  some  trouble. 

"  Q.  Now,  you  say  that  there  was  no  trouble  talked 
about  on  Monday  night  at  the  Monday  night  meeting 
that  was  expected  on  any  particular  night,  do  you? 

"  A.     Not  as  long  as  I  was  there. 

"  Q.  Not  as  long  as  you  were  there,  but  you  had 
talked  before  that  if  the  police  attacked  the  laboring  men 
that  they  would  resist? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  And  that  is  what  you  mean  -when  you  say  that  you 
expected  if  the  police  had  attacked  the  meeting  that  may  be 
there  might  be  some  trouble,  is  it? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

GUSTAVE  LEHMANN  testified  ( J,  194)  that  he  at- 
tended the  meeting  in  Greif's  basement,  got  there  a  quar- 
ter before  9;  went  there  because  of  the  notice  in  the  Ar- 
beiter  Zeitung,  "  Y,  come  Monday  night,"  which  meant 
that  the  armed  ones  should  meet  there.  "  When  I  got 
"  there  somebody  made  a  motion  to  -post  somebody  at  the 
"  door,  and  then  I  went  out  to  the  sidewalk  by  the  door. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  as  to  why  you  should  be 
posted  at  the  door? 

"  A.  That  no  one  who  was  going  to  the  closet  should  re- 
main there  and  listen. 

"  Q.     Where  were  you  stationed? 

"  A.  On  (under}  the  sidewalk  where  the  steps  were 
leading  down,  that  no  one  should  remain  there" 

During  the  progress  of  the  meeting  he  went  in  twice; 
all  that  he  heard  at  the  meeting  was  Fischer's  offer  to 
take  upon  himself  the  printing  and  distribution  of  the 
handbills.  The  witness  had  known  Lingg  about  six 
months;  could  not  say  whether  he  was  in  the  basement, 
but  they  went  home  together;  on  the  way  home  they 
had  a  talk.  "  Somebody  came  to  us  from  behind  on  the 
"  sidewalk,  and  he  said  to  us,  '  You  are  all  oxen— 
"  fools.' 


'75 

"Q.     Who  said  that? 

"•A.     Lingg. 

"  Q.     What  else  did  he  say? 

"  A.  /  asked  him  what  was  going  on,  and  he  told  me 
if  I  wanted  to  knoTU  something  I  should  come  to  58  Cly- 
bourn  avenue  the  next  night. 

"  Q.     You  asked  him  what  was  going  on  where? 

"  A.  What  had  taken  place  at  the  meeting  we  were 
just  coming  from. 

"  Q.  Were  you  and  Lingg  alone,  or  were  others  with 
you? 

"  A.  Seliger,  my  brother,  Lingg,  and  there  was  one 
more  that  I  cannot  now  recall  his  name." 

THOMAS  GREIF,  the  keeper  of  the  place  where  the 
meeting  was  held,  testified  (I,  327)  that  on  Monday 
night,  May  3d,  Breitenfield  came  to  him  and  wanted  a 
hall;  that  his  halls  were  all  occupied,  and  the  only  place 
he  could  give  him  was  the  basement;  Breitenfield  said 
that  when  the  "  Ypsilon  "  (the  German  name  for  the  let- 
ter Y)  folks  came  to  tell  them  to  come  downstairs;  the 
meeting  began  about  8  o'clock,  and  closed  about  u. 

HILL  C.  SMYTHE,  a  reporter,  testified  (J,  369)  that  he 
spent  the  day  of  the  3d  of  May  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Greif's  saloon ;  said  that  on  Monday  night  "  I  remember  of 
going  down  to  the  basement,  and  upon  reaching  the  base- 
ment floor  that  some  one  run  down  behind  me  and  ordered 
me  out. 

"  Q.  Which  way  did  you  try  to  get  to  the  basement 
— through  which  door? 

"  A.  From  the  rear  of  the  building  itself,  a  stairway 
leading  from  a  portion  of  the  room,  directly  in  the  rear  of 
the  bar. 

"  Q.  It  was  the  way  leading  from  the  saloon  to  the 
basement? 

"  A.     From  the  saloon  to  the  basement;  yes. 

'•  Q.     You  were  prevented  from  going  down? 


176 

"  A.  Well,  I  got  down  to  the  lower  floor,  and  was 
then  ordered  out. 

"  Q.  Did  you  observe  whether  the  basement  was 
lighted  or  not? 

"  A.     It  was. 

"  Q.     At  that  time? 

"  A.     Yes. 


(E.)     LINGO'S  WORK  TUESDAY  AND  TUESDAY 
NIGHT. 

The  Hay  market  mass-meeting  was  called  for  7:30  p. 
M.  There  was  no  speaking,  nor  any  organized  meeting 
until  about  half-past  9  o'clock.  Previous  to  that  those 
who  had  gathered  were  moving  around  aimlessly,  or 
gathering  in  small  groups  at  the  different  portions  of  the 
Haymarket.  About  nine  o'clock  Spies  called  the  meet- 
ing to  order.  The  bomb  was  thrown  at  about  half-past 
10. 

We  wish  now  to  call  attention  to  the  transaction  of 
Lingg  and  those  engaged  with  him  during  Tuesday. 

WILLIAM  SELIGER  testifies  (I,  505)  that  he  didn't  work 
on  Tuesday  at  his  trade.  "  I  got  up  at  half-past  7 
and  after  we  got  up  Lingg  came.  I  had  previously  told 
him  that  I  wanted  those  things  (bombs,  dynamite,  etc.) 
removed  from  my  dwelling.  He  told  me  to  work  dili- 
gently at  these  bombs  and  they  would  be  taken  away 
that  day.  I  took  some  coffee  and  after  a  time  I  worked 
at  some  shells — at  some  loaded  shells.  I  was  drilling  the 
holes — the  holes  through  which  the  bolt  went.  I  worked 
at  that  half  an  hour. 

"  Q.      Was  any  one  helping  you  that  morning? 


177 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.     Where  was  Lingg? 

"  A.     He  went  to  the  west  side,  to  a  meeting. 

"  Q.     What  time  did  Lingg  get  back.'' 

"  A.     It  was  probably  i   o'clock  or  after. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  after 
he  came  back? 

"  A.  No;  he  only  said  that  I  hadn't  done  much;  that 
I  ought  to  have  worked  more  diligently.  1  said  that  I 
hadn't  any  more  mind  to  work — I  hadnt  any  pleasure  at 
the  work.  Then  Lingg  said, '  well  we  have  to  work  very 
diligently  this  afternoon? 

"  Q.     Were  you  there  during  the  afternoon? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     What  were  you  doing? 

"  A.     I  was  helping  on  the  shell. 

"  Q.     What  did  you  do  during  the  afternoon? 

"  A.     I  did  different  work  at  them. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Lingg 
about  the  bolts? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  When  was  it  you  had  that  conversation  with 
him? 

"  A.     In  the  morning. 

"  Q.     What  was  the  conversation  about  the  bolts? 

"  A.  He  told  me  that  he  had  not  enough  of  those 
bolts,  and  gave  me  one,  and  told  me  to  go  to  Clybourn 
avenue,  I  believe,  and  get  there  some  that  he  had  already 
spoken  to  the  man  about. 

"  Q.     Did  you  get  any? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     How  many  did  you  get? 

"  A.     I  cannot  tell  exactly;  I  think  there  were  fifty. 

"  Q.  During  the  afternoon  how  long  did  you  work  on 
the  bombs? 

"  A.  I  worked  at  them  different  times,  not  continu- 
ously. 

"  Q.  At  different  times  during  the  whole  of  the  after- 
noon f 

«  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.      Was  any  one  else  helping  you? 

« A.      Yes. 


i78 

«  Q.     Who? 

"  A.     Huebner  and  Munsenberg. 

"  Q.  Was  anybody  else  there  besides  Huebner  and 
Munsenberg? 

"  A.     Yes. 

«  Q.     Who  else? 

"  A.     Heumann. 

"  Q.     Anybody  else? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.  Were  there  any  there  whose  names  you  don't 
know? 

"A.     No;  I  don't  know. 

"  Q.     What  room  did  you  work  in? 

"A.  In  the  little  front  room;  and  also  in  Lingg's 
room,  and  also  in  the  rear  room. 

"  Q.     What  did  Lingg  do  that  afternoon? 

"  A.  He  -worked  at  different  things;  first  he  -worked  at 
gas  pipes — gas  or  -water  pipes. 

"  Q.  Look  at  the  pieces  of  pipe  I  now  show  you. 
Was  he  working  on  such  pieces  as  those? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  How  many  bombs  were  made  that  afternoon  so 
far  as  you  know? 

"  A.  That  I  cannot  tell  exactly,  but  there  was  quite  a 
portion  of  them, 

"  Q.     About  how  many? 

"  A.  I  cannot  tell  exactly  how  many,  but  there  was 
quite  a  number. 

"  Q.  Can't  you  say  about  how  many?  Whether 
there  were  three  or  four  or  a  dozen  or  two  dozen? 

"  A.  Oh,  no;  there  -were  more;  there  -were  probably 
thirty  or  forty  or  fifty. 

"  Q.     About  how  many  round  bombs  were  made? 

"  A.     I  cannot  tell  that  exactly. 

"  Q.  Were  the  bombs  cast  that  afternoon — the  round 
ones? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.      Who  cast  those  bombs,  if  you  know? 

"  A.     Lingg  was  casting  them  once  by  himself. 

"  Q.     Where  did  he  cast  them? 

"  A.     In  the  rear  room,  upon  my  stove. 

"  Q..     When  was  it  you  saw  him  casting  the  bomb? 


179 

"  A.  Probably  six  weeks  previous  to  the  4th  of 
May." 

The  first  of  the  Lingg  bombs  that  he  saw  was  in 
Lingg's  room  more  than  six  weeks  previous  to  that  time, 
when  Lingg  told  him  that  he  was  going  to  make  bombs; 
he  saw  the  first  dynamite  in  Lingg's  room  about  five  or 
six  weeks  prior  to  the  ist  of  May. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  him  about  that  dyn- 
amite? 

"  A.     Yes,  he  told  me  that  he  had  some  dynamite." 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  him  about  the  ob- 
jects of  that  dynamite? 

"  A.  Well,  he  said  that  every  workingrnan  should  have 
some  dynamite,  and  that  there  should  be  considerable  agi- 
tation, that  every  ivorkmgman  would  learn  to  use — to  handle 
these  things. 

"  Q.  During  the  day,  on  Tuesday,  while  you  were 
making  the  bombs,  did  you  have  any  talk  with  Lingg 
about  what  the  bombs  were  to  be  used  for? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  What  conversation  did  you  have  with  him  about 
that? 

"  A.  Well,  he  said  that  it  was  going  to  be  good  fodder 
for  the  capitalists  and  the  -police  when  they  came  to  pro- 
tect the  capitalists. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  about  when  they  wanted  the 
bombs  completed  or  ready? 

"  A.  No.  I  only  told  him  that  I  wanted  those  things 
out  of  my  room. 

"  Q.  Was  there  any  conversation  between  you  and 
Lingg  as  to  what  time  the  bombs  were  to  be  completed? 

"  A.  Not  positively  as  to  time,  no;  it  was  only  a  re- 
mark that  they  should  be  used  that  evening — that  they  were 
to  be  used  that  evening, 

"  Q.  What  time  did  you  leave  your  house  that  even- 
ing? 

"  A.     It  was  about  half-past  8  in  the  evening. 

"  Q.  How  long  during  the  afternoon  was  Huebner  at 
the  house? 


i8o 

"  A.  That  I  cannot  tell  precisely;  probably  from  4  to 
half-past  5  or  6  o'clock." 

Huebner  was  working  at  the  bombs  in  the  front 
room;  Lingg  was  in  the  front  room,  and  Muenzenberger 
was  there  at  the  same  time;  Thielen  was  there  half  an 
hour,  or  not  quite  that;  the  Lehmanns  were  also  there  in 
the  front  room;  Lingg  and  the  witness  in  the  evening 
left  the  house  together." 

"  Q.     What  did  you  have? 

"  A.     We  had  a  little  trunk  in  which  we  had  bombs. 

"  Q.     Describe  the  little  trunk  that  you  had? 

"  A.  That  I  cannot  tell  precisely;  it  was  probably 
two  feet  long,  one  foot  high  and  one  foot  wide. 

"  Q.     What  was  it  made  of? 

"  A.  I  did  not  see  what  it  was  made  out  of;  it  was 
covered  with  coarse  linen. 

"  Q.      What  did  you  have  in  thai  f 

"  A.     Bombs. 

"  Q.     What  kind  of  bombs? 

"  A.     Pipes  and  round. 

"  Q.     How  many  did  you  have? 

"  A.     I  cannot  tell  exactly  how  many  there  were. 

"  Q.     About  how  many  did  you  have? 

"  A.     I  cannot  tell  how  many. 

"  Q.     About  how  much  did  that  trunk  weigh? 

"A.  They  might  have  weighed  from  thirty  to  fifty 
pounds. 

"  Q.     Were  those  bombs  loaded  or  empty? 

"  A.      Yes,  they  -were  loaded. 

"  Q.     How  did  you  carry  that  package? 

"  A.  We  had  drawn  a  stick  or  pole  through  the 
handle. 

«  Q.     Who  had? 

"  A.  Lingg  had  broken  a  stick  and  we  pulled  it 
through.  Lingg  helped  to  carry  the  bundle  to  NefT's 
Hall,  58  Cly bourn  avenue;  the  bombs  were  loaded  with 
dynamite.  On  the  way  to  Neff's  they  met  Muensenber- 
ger;  the  bombs  were  taken  in  that  building,  58  Cly- 
bourn  avenue;  Muenzenberger  took  them  in  through 


iSi 

the  saloon  into  the  hallway  on  the  side  that  led  from  the 
saloon  out  to  the  rear;  they  were  left  in  the  hall. 

"  Q.  After  the  bombs  were  put  down  in  the  passage- 
way, what  became  of  them? 

"  A.  //  was  open  and  several  persons  came  and  took 
bombs. 

"  Q.     What  did  you  see  done  there  with   the  bombs? 

"  A.  There  were  different  ones  there  who  took  bombs 
out  for  themselves. 

"  Q.     Who  took  bombs  whose  names  you  know? 

"  A.  That  I  cannot  tell  precisely,  who  took  bombs 
there. 

"  Q.     How  many  persons  did  you  see  take  bombs? 

"  A.      Three  or  four. 

"  Q.     Did  you  take  any  yourself? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"•  Q.     How  many  did  you  take? 

«  A.     Two. 

"  Q.     What  kind  of  ones — round' or  pipe? 

"  A.     I  took  pipe  bombs. 

"  Q.      Where  did  you  carry  them? 

"  A.     We  went  away  from  Neff's  Hall. 

"  Q.  Where  did  you  carry  the  bombs  which  you  took 
— in  your  hands  or  in  your  pockets? 

"  A.     In  my  pocket. 

"  Q.  When  you  left  Neff's  Hall  where  was  the  pack- 
age of  bombs? 

"  A.     Still  in  that  passage-way. 

"  Q.  What  is  the  name  of  the  hall  back  of  Neff's 
Hall? 

"A.  //  is  known  under  the  name  of  the  '  Shanty  of  the 
Communists?  ' 

(A  plan  of  this  building  appears  in  People's  Exhibit  2.) 

"  Q.  Who  used  to  meet  in  that  hall,  so  far  as  you 
know? 

"  A.     The  socialists. 

"  Q.  What  organization  of  socialists  used  to  meet 
there? 

"  A.  All  the  various  shades  of  them — communists,  an- 
archists and  socialists,  and  the  north  side  groups  of  the  In- 
ternational, and  companies  of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein. 


l82 

"  Q.  When  you  left  Neff's  Hall  that  night  with  the 
bombs  in  your  pockets  who  were  with  you? 

"  A.     Lingg,  Thielen  and  Lehmann. 

"  Q.     Which  Lehmann? 

"  A.     Gustav. 

"  Q.     Any  others  whose  names  you  can  remember? 

"  A.  Those  that  left  the  hall  directly  I  cannot  say,  but 
there  was  some  others  that  came  to  us  afterwards. 

"  Q.     Who  were  those? 

"  A.  There  were  two  of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein ; 
they  were  large  men.  *  *  * 

"  Q.  Did  those  with  you  have  anything,  and  if  so 
what  was  it? 

"  A.     I  believe  they  all  had  bombs. 

"Q.     How  about  Lingg? 

"  A.     I  cannot  tell  how  many  he  had. 

"  Q.     After  leaving  Neff's  Hall  where  did  you  go? 

"  A.     We  went  to  Larrabee  street. 

"  Q.     Whereabouts  on  Larrabee  street? 

"  A.     On  Clybourn  avenue,  north. 

"Q.     Where  to? 

"A.     Towards  Lincoln  avenue. 

"Q.     Tell  what  happened  after  you  left  Neff's  Hall? 

"  A.  We  went  down  Clybourn  avenue  towards  Lar- 
rabee street,  to  the  Larrabee  street  station  where  we 
halted. 

"  Q.     Who  halted  there? 

"  A.     Lingg  and  myself. 

"  Q.  What  had  become  of  the  others  who  had  started 
with  you? 

"  A.     That  I  don't  know;  some  went  ahead  of  us. 

"  Q.  Tell  whatever  was  said  between  von  and  Lingg 
or  any  of  the  others  as  to  -what  you  were  going-  to  do  that 
night? 

"  A.  Well,  there  was  to  be  made  a  disturbance  that 
night  on  the  north  side  that  had  previously  been  deter- 
mined on,  as  I  heard.  There  was  to  be  made  a  disturb- 
ance on  the  north  side  that  evening  which  had  previously 
been  determined  upon;  there  were  disturbances  to  be  made 
on  the  west  and  north  side  to  prevent  the  police  to  go  over 
to  the  west  side. 


"  Q.  Tell  what  conversation  you  had  with  Lingg  that 
night  while  you  were  walking  from  Neff's  Hall? 

"A.  There  should  be  made  a  disturbance  everywhere  on? 
the  north  side  to  prevent  the  police  from  going  over  on  the 
•west  side. 

Q.  What  happened  while  you  and  Lingg  were  in 
front  of  the  Larrabee  street  station? 

"  A.  He  expressed  the  opinion  that  it  might  be  a  beau- 
tiful thing  if  we  would  walk  over  and  throw  one  or  two 
bombs  into  the  police  station. 

"  Q.     Who  expressed  that  opinion? 

"  A.     Lingg. 

"  Q.     What  else  was  said  about  that? 

"  A.  Well,  there  were  two  policemen  sitting  in  front 
of  the  station,  and  he  said  if  the  others  came  out  these  two 
could  not  do  much;  we  would  shoot  these  two  down. 

"  Q.     What  else  happened  while  you  were  there? 

"  A.     Then  we  proceeded  on  our  way. 

"  Q.     Tell  what  happened? 

"  A.  We  went  further  north  to  Lincoln  avenue  and 
Larrabee  street,  where  we  halted  and  took  a  glass  of 
beer. 

"  Q.     Is  there  any  police  station  near  that  place? 

"  A.     Yes,  there  is  one. 

"  Q.     Do  you  know  the  name  of  it? 

"  A.     Yes,  I  know  it;  but  I  heard  it  afterwards. 

"  Q.     What  is  the  name  of  it? 

"  A.     The  Webster  avenue  station. 

"  Q.     After  you  left  that  saloon  what  happened? 

"  A.  Then  we  proceeded  a  few  blocks  north,  and 
then  we  turned  about  and  came  back.  Then  we  came 
back  to  North  avenue  and  Larrabee  street;  then  we 
stood  there;  while  we  stood  there  some  policemen  came 
from  the  outside^  and  we  stood  there  a  little  while  longer 
and  the  patrol  wagon  came;  there  were  some  calls  when 
the  policemen  came — some  one  had  come  out  of  the  station 
and  called^  and  that  brought  the  policemen  to  the  spot. " 

[At  thirty-two  minutes  past  10  on  that  night  a  patrol 
wagon,  filled  with  police,  left  Larrabee  street  station  and 
started  for  the  Haymarket  (K,  462) ;  the  wagon  went  east 


i84 

on  North  avenue  and  south  on  Larrabee,  thus  passing  the 
point  where  Seliger  says  he  and  Lingg  were  standing. 
(K,463.)] 

"  Q.      Where  were  you  when  the  patrol  wagon  passed? 

"  A.     South  of  North  avenve  and  Larrabee  street. 

"  Q.  What  happened  as  the  patrol  wagon  came  along? 

"  A.     Lingg  wanted  to  throw  a  bomb. 

"  Q.     What  did  he  say? 

"  A,     He  said  that  is  the  best  opportunity. 

"  Q.  Give  the  whole  of  the  conversation  between  you 
and  Lingg  at  that  time?  What  did  you  say  to  .Lingg, 
and  what  did  he  say  to  you?  What  did  he  do,  and 
what  did  you  do? 

"  A.  Lingg  said  that  he  was  going  to  throw  the  bomb, 
that  was  the  best  opportunity  to  throw  the  bomb,  and  1  said 
it  would  be  without  effect;  it  would)? t  have  any  purpose. 

"  Q.     What  else  was  said  or  done? 

"  A.  Then  he  became  quite  wild,  excited,  said  that  1 
should  give  him  some  fire — a  light.  I  was  smoking  a 
cigar,  and  J  jumped  into  the  front  hall — the  front  opening 
before  a  store — and  lighted  a  match,  the  same  as  if  I  in- 
tended to  light  a  cigar. 

"  Q.  When  you  got  the  light,  where  was  the  patrol 
wagon  ?  When  you  had  lighted  your  cigar,  where  was  the 
patrol  wagon  f 

"  A.     //  was  just  passing. 

"  Q.  What  did  you  say  to  Lingg,  and  what  did  he 
say  to  you  after  he  got  the  light? 

"  A.  /  said  it  would  be  without  a  purpose,  and  he  was 
going  to  go  after  the  wagon. 

"Q.     What  did  he  say? 

"  A.  He  said  he  was  going  to  go  after  the  wagon  to 
see  what  had  happened,  saying  that  something  had  cer- 
tainly happened  on  the  west  side,  or  some  trouble. 

"  Q.     Was  there  anybody  in  the  patrol  wagon  ? 

"A.     Yes;  it  was  completely  manned. 

"  Q.  How  near  were  you  to  the  police  station  when 
you  stepped  in  for  a  light? 

"  A.     About  four  or  five  houses  distant. 

"  Q.     In  which  direction  was  the  patrol  wagon  going? 

"  A.     South  on  Larrabee  street. 


«  Q.     What  did  you  do  after  that? 

"  A.  I  went  into  the  door  of  a  house  between  Mo- 
hawk street  and  Larrabee  street  and  lighted  a  cigar. 

"  Q.     Then  what  did  you  do? 

"  A.     Then  we  went  towards  home. 

"  Q.  Before  you  went  to  your  home  did  you  have 
any  talk  with  Lingg  about  whether  you  should  stay  on 
the  street  or  whether  you  should  go  home? 

"  A.  Yes :  he  first  -wanted  to  ivait  until  the  patrol 
wagon  would  come  back,  but  I  importuned  him  to  go  home 
with  me. 

"  Q.     What  time  did  you  get  home? 

"  A.  It  was  probably  shortly  before  1 1 ;  I  cannot  tell 
exactly. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  Lingg  on  your  way 
home? 

"A.  Yes;  he  asked  me  TV  he  t  her  I  had  seen  some 
papers  and  seen  that  there  ivas  a  notice,  or  whether  I 
Jiad  seen  a  notice  that  a  meeting  should  be  held  on  the 
west  side  of  the  armed  men.  I  said  no,  I  had  seen 
notJiing.  Lingg  was  going  to  go  out  right  away,  but  I 
asked  him  not  to  do  so,  and  I  took  the  paper  and  tore  it 
in  two  parts,  and  he  took  one  and  I  took  one. 

"  Q.     What  paper  was  that? 

"A.  The  Arbeiter  Zeitung;  thereupon  he  said,  '-Here 
it  is."1 

"  Q.     Did  he  show  you  the  paper  at  that  time? 

"A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     What  did  he  call  your  attention  to? 

"  A.      To  the  word  *  Ruhe: 

"  Q.  Look  at  the  paper  which  I  now  show  you, 
marked  '  People's  Exhibit  4.'  Did  you  see  the  word  in 
that  paper? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     Is  that  the  same  you  saw  in  your  house? 

"  A.     Yes;  that  is  the  same. 

"  Q.  Now,  what  talk  did  you  have  with  Lingg — what 
did  you  say  to  him  and  what  did  he  say  to  you  about  that 
word  'Ruhe  '? 

"A.  He  had  previously  asked  me  if  1  had  read  the 
•paper,  and  1  had  told  him  no,  because  J  had  reference  to 
the  *  /",'  and  !  hadrft  known  anything-  about  the  word 


1 86 

'  Ruhe '  until  we  got  borne;  and  thereupon  he  said,  '•Here 
it  is: 

"  Q.  What  talk  did  you  have  about  what  the  word 
'  Ruhe'  meant? 

"  A.  I  did  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  word  '  Ruhe,' 
until  the  time  I  saw  it. 

"  Q.     What  did  he  say  to  you  about  it? 

"A.  He  said  there  had  been  a  meeting  on  the  -west  side 
and  he  was  going  to  go  at  once  to  it;  there  was  to  have  been 
a  meeting'  on  the  -west  side,  there  -was  to  be  that  night. 

"  What  else  did  Lingg  say  about  the  word  '  Rhue'? 

"  A.  That  everything  -was  to  go  upside  down — topsy- 
turvy— that  there  was  to  be  trouble. 

"  Q.  Give  everything  that  Lingg  said,  as  fully  as  you 
can,  about  what  the  word  *  Ruhe  '  meant? 

"A.  He  said  to  me  that  a  meeting  had  been  held  at 
54.  West  Lake  street,  and  it  was  determined  upon  that  the 
word  '  Ruhe '  should  appear  in  the  papers  as  a  signal  for 
the  armed  men  to  appear  at  that  meeting. 

"  Q.  Repeat  what  Lingg  said  to  you  about  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  '  Ruhe  '? 

"  A.  Well,  he  said  that  a  meeting  had  been  held  at 
which  it  was  determined  that  the  word  '  Ruhe '  should  go 
into  the  paper  for  all  the  armed  men  to  appear  at  54  West 
Lake  street,  that  there  should  be  trouble. 

"  Q.  After  you  had  a  talk  with  Lingg  about  the  word 
'  Ruhe,'  what  did  you  do? 

"  A.  We  went  away;  he  was  going  over  on  the  west 
side,  and  I  talked  with  him  to  go  with  me  to  Clybourn 
avenue,  where  I  went. 

"  Q.     Where  were  you  going? 

"  A.     To  Neff's  Hall,  58  Clybourn  avenue. 

"  Q.     Where  did  Lingg  say  he  wanted  to  go? 

"  A.     To  the  west  side. 

"  Q.     What  happened  after  you  got  to  Neff's  Hall? 

"  A.  We  went  in  and  there  were  several  persons 
present. 

"  Q.  After  you  got  to  Neff's  Hall,  what  conversation 
did  \  ou  have  with  Lingg,  or  did  he  have  with  others  in 
your  presence? 

"  A.     I  did  not  speak  with  Lingg  at  Neflf's  Hall. 


i87 

"  Q.  Did  you  hear  him  say  anything  to  others,  or 
others  anything  to  him? 

"  A.     Others  were  speaking  to  him. 

"  Q.     What  did  others  say  to  Lingg? 

"  A.  A  certain  Hermann  (ffeummm)  said  to  him  in  a 
very  energetic  tone  of  voice,  '  You  are  the  fault  of  all 

of  it: 

"  Q.  What  did  Lingg  say  to  that? 

"  A.  That  I  did  not  hear;  they  thereupon  spoke  in  a 
subdued  tone. 

"  Q.  Did  you  hear  anything  said  there  about  the  Hay- 
market  in  the  presence  of  Lingg? 

«  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  What  was  that? 

"  A.  That  a  bomb  had  fallen  which  had  killed  many 
and  wounded  many. 

"  Q.  What  did  Lingg  say  in  that  connection? 

"  A.  That  I  did  not  hear. 

"  Q.  Do  you  remember  any  talk  with  him  on  your 
ivay  home? 

"  A.  Yes,  he  made  the  remark  that  he  -was  even  now 
scolded — chided—for  the  -work  he  had  done. 

"Q.  What  time  did  you  get  home? 

"A.  It  was  shortly  after  12. 

"  Q.  What  became  of  the  bombs  which  you  had? 

"  A.  We  laid  them  oft  on  our  way. 

"  Q.  Where  did  you  put  them? 

"  A.  On  Sigel  street. 

"  Q.  Whereabouts  on  Sigel  street? 

"  A.  Between  Sedgwick  and  Hurlbut — near  Hurlbut. 

"  Q.  Whereabouts  on  the  street  did  you  put  them? 

"  A.  Under  an  elevated  sidewalk. 

"  Q.  What  kind  of  bombs  did  you  put  there? 

"  A.  I  laid  two  pipe-bombs  there. 

"  Q.  Wrhat  kind  did  Lingg  put  there,  if  you  saw 
them? 

"A.  That  I  don't  know;  I  did  not  see. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  Lingg  put  anything  there? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  But  you  did  not  see  what  it  was? 

"A.  No,  but  he  laid  bombs  there;  one  bomb  or  sev- 


i88 

eral  bombs,  I  sannot  say  with  certainty,  but  surely  bombs. 

"  Q.  What  time  did  you  get  home  that  night  last? 

"A.  Shortly  after  12. 

"  Q.  What  time  did  you  get  up  in  the  morning? 

"  A.  Probably  6  o'clock. 

"  Q.  What  time  did  Lingg  get  up? 

"  A.  That  I  don't  know. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Lingg  that 
morning? 

"  A.  No. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  him  during  Wednes- 
day? 

"  A.  Not  until  evening,  when  he  got  home. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  with  him  then? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  What? 

"  A.  We  spoke  about  the  meeting  at  the  Haymarket. 

"  Q.  What  did  he  say  about  it? 

"  A.  If  the  working-men  had  the  advantage  of  it. 

"  Q.  What  became  of  Lingg  after  that? 

"  A.  We  went  together  to  a  meeting;  there  was  to  be 
a  meeting  at  Fifth  avenue,  at  Seaman's  Hall." 

The  first  time  he  saw  dynamite  at  his  house  was  six 
weeks  prior  to  the  4th  of  May;  Lingg  brought  it;  he  also 
brought  some  on  Friday  before  that  Tuesday;  it  was  in  a 
wooden  box  of  considerable  size,  about  three  feet  in  length 
and  sixteen  to  eighteen  inches  in  height;  it  contained  dyn- 
amite; there  was  a  tin  box  inside  of  it.  The  dynamite 
with  which  the  bombs  were  filled  were  in  Lingg's  room 
in  a  large  wooden  box  which  he  brought  on  the  Friday 
previous.  They  handled  the  dynamite  with  their  hands 
and  a  flat  piece  of  wood.  Lingg  made  the  piece  of  wood 
for  convenience  in  filling.  Witness  identified  the  pan  in 
which  the  shells  were  cast  (a  photograph  of  which  ap- 
pears in  the  record  as  People's  Exhibit,  132). 

"  Q.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Lingg 
as  to  the  number  of  bombs  he  had  made? 


"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     How  many  did  he  say  he  had  made? 

"  A.  He  said  he  might  have  made  eighty  to  one  hun- 
dred. 

"  Q.  When  you  went  and  bought  bolts  how  did  the 
ones  you  got  compare  with  this  one  (referring  to  bolt 
about  two  and  one-half  inches  long)  ? 

"A.  They  were  something  like  that;  he  had  several 
kinds,  but  such  as  that  he  gave  me  along  as  a  pattern 
after  which  to  get  the  others." 

On  cross-examination  he  testified  that  he  and  Lingg 
returned  home  the  first  time  after  their  excursion  about 
ii  o'clock;  that  they  were  within  five  or  six  minutes' 
walk  of  the  house  when  Lingg  first  told  him  about  the 
notice  that  was  in  the  paper;  that  that  was  his  first 
knowledge  of  the  notice  in  the  letter-box  containing  the 
word  '  Ruhe.' 

"  Q.  Did  Lingg  say  a  word  about  going  to  the  Hay- 
market  square  that  night  until  after  he  got  home  the  first 
time  at  ii  o'clock? 

"  A.  Yes,  he  wanted  to  know  how  it  looked  over 
there — how  matters  stood  over  there. 

"  (Question  read.)  A.  Yes,  he  would  like  to  know 
whether  there  was  to  be  a  meeting  over  on  the  west  side, 
of  the  armed  men. 

"  Q.  Did  he  say  a  word  about  going  to  the  Hay- 
market  square  until  he  got  home  at  n  o'clock? 

"  A.  Yes  ;  he  wanted  to  know  how  matters  stood  over  there 
on  the  west  side.  He  would  like  to  look  in  the  'paper,  and 
asked  me  whether  I  had  read  the  paper. 

"  Q.  Up  to  the  time  that  you  got  home  at  ii  o'clock, 
did  Lingg  say  anything  about  himself  going  to  the  Hay- 
market  square?  Not  about  what  he  would  like;  not 
about  what  the  newspaper  said;  but  did  he  say  anything 
about  his  own  intention  of  himself  going  to  the  Haymar- 
ket  before  ii  o'clock? 

"  A.  No;  not  directly  about  his  own  going  to  the  Hay- 
market;  but  he  expressed  himself  that  he  would  like  to  knoiu 
about  the  matter — how  matters  were. 


"  Q.  After  1 1  o'clock  he  called  your  attention  to  this 
notice  in  the  paper,  did  he,  containing  the  word  '  Ruhe  '  ? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q,  When  was  it  that  Lingg  said  that  he  wondered 
what  was  going  on  at  the  Haymarket,  or  would  like  to 
know  what  was  going  on — was  it  about  the  time  that  you 
got  back  home? 

"  A.  Pie  wanted  to  know  how  it  stood  at  the  Haymarket 
•previously  to  that  time. 

"  Q.     How  long  previous  to  your  going  home? 

"  A.  //  may  have  been  eight  minutes,  or  may  be  twenty 
minutes.  He  wanted  to  know  at  various  times  how  matters 
stood  over  there. 

"  Q.  After  you  got  home  at  n  o'clock  Lingg  called 
your  attention  to  this  notice  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung, 
didn't  he? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  Told  you  that  under  the  '  letter-box '  the  word 
'  Ruhe '  meant  the  armed  section  should  meet  at  54  West 
Lake  street? 

"  A.  Yes,  he  said  that  a  meeting  had  taken  place 
there  and  that  evening  everything  was  to  be  in  confusion. 

"  Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Lingg  tell  you  that  the  word  '  Ruhe  ' 
under  the  '  letter-box  '  meant  that  the  armed  sections  were 
to  meet  at  54  West  Lake  street? 

"  A.  He  said  that  a  meeting  had  already  taken  pi  ace  at 
that  place,  and  that  he  wanted  to  go  over  and  see  what  had 
happened. 

$£  $£  ^  %;  v  ^  ^ 

"  Q.  When  was  it  you  first  learned  that  there  was  to 
be  a  meeting  at  the  Haymarket? 

"  A.  When  I  was  about  to  go  the  Carpenters'  Union 
meeting. 

"  Q.     What  day  of  the  month  was  that? 

«  A.     The  3d. 

"  Q.  You  say  that  you  knew  on  the  3d  there  was  go- 
ing to  be  a  meeting  on  the  night  of  the  4th? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     But  you  did  not  go  to  that  Haymarket  meeting? 

"A.     No. 

"  Q.  You  went  around  in  North  Chicago  with  bombs 
in  your  pocket,  did  you? 


"  A.     Yes,  with  several  together. 

"  Q.  Then  after  you  went  home  at  n  o'clock  you 
were  persuaded  to  go  down  to  54  West  Lake  street  with 
Lingg,  were  you? 

"  A.  Well,  generally  to  the  west  side;  not  to  54  West 
Lake  street,  but  he  said  to  the  west  side,  to  see  what 
happened  there. 

"  Q.  Don't  you  know  that  after  n  o'clock  the 
night  of  the  4th  that  you  and  Louis  Lingg  started  to  go 
to  Greif's  Hall? 

"  A.     We  only  wanted  to  go  to  the  west  side. 

"  Q.     Nothing  was  said  of  Greif's  Hall? 

"  A.  Yes,  that  also.  We  would  surely  have  gone  to 
Greif's  Hall  if  we  had  gone  over  the  west  side. 

"  Q.  Was  anything  said  about  the  Haymarket — about 
going  to  the  Haymarket? 

"  A.  Yes,  he  said  he  would  like  to  know  what  had 
happened  there  at  the  Haymarket. 

"  Q.     Wras  anything  said  about  the  Haymarket? 

«•  A.     No,  only  to  the  west  side. 

"  Q.  When  you  spoke  about  going  to  the  west  side, 
you  and  Lingg,  did  you  understand  that  you  meant 
Zepf's  Hall  or  Greif's  Hall  or  Florus'  Hall? 

"  A.  One  of  those  halls  was  certainly  meant;  for  there 
is  no  other  place. 

"  Q.  So,  then,  you  did  not  talk  and  you  did  not  under- 
stand that  you  were  going  to  the  Haymarket,  did  you? 

"A.  No;  only  to  know  what  was  taking  place  there. 
*****  * 

"  Q.     Lingg  didn't  have  a  light  that  night,  did  he? 

"  A.     No;  I  believe  not. 

"  Q.     Did  he  have  any  matches? 

«  A.     That  I  don't  know. 

"  Q.  Don't  you  know  that  when  the  patrol  wagon 
went  by,  that  he  applied  to  you  for  a  light? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     You  saw  him  have  no  light  that  night,  did  you? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.  Did  you  go  any  nearer  the  Haymarket  than  58 
Clybourn  avenue? 

"A.     No;  I  was  not  closer. 


'"  Q.  Then  you  mean  that  it  would  take  you,  walking 
at  an  ordinary  rate,  three-quarters  of  an  hour  to  go  from 
where  you  were  to  the  nearest  point  to  the  Hay  market? 

"  A.  Yes,  I  think  it  is  about  that  far — fully  three- 
quarters  of  an  hour's  walk. 

****** 

"  Q.  At  the  time  you  were  making  these  bombs  in 
the  afternoon  at  your  house,  did  you  talk  on  general  sub- 
ject in  regard  to  the  labor  trouble  among  yourselves? 

"  A.     Yes;  we  talked  about  that. 

"  Q.  Who  did  you  talk  with  on  that  occasion  about 
that? 

"  A.     I  spoke  with  several  about  that. 

"  Q.     Who  were  thev? 

"  A.  Lingg  said  that  the  bombs  had  to  be  finished  that 
evening;  that  it  was  good  fodder  for  capitalists  and  police. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  take  any  bombs  from  your 
house  except  you  and  Lingg? 

"  A.  No,  I  did  not  see  it  directly,  but  I  believe  that 
several  took  some  along. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  the  men  who  helped  you  make  the 
bombs  up  at  Clybourn  avenue? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  them  all  there? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.     How  many  did  you  see  there? 

"  A.     I  can  remember  two. 

"  Q.  How  many  were  making  bombs  at  your  house 
that  afternoon? 

"  A.  That  I  cannot  state  precisely.  1  believe  four  or 
five  or  six. 

"  Q.  Before  the  afternoon  of  the  4th  of  May  did  you 
see  Lingg  have  any  bombs  at  your  house? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     How  many? 

"  A.     I  cannot  say. 

"  Q.  He  brought  one  there  in  the  first  place  and 
showed  it  to  you,  didn't  he? 

"  A.  Yes;  he  showed  me  some  pipes  at  one  time  and 
also  some  shells. 


J93 

"  Q.  Did  he  at  that  time  say  they  were  good  food  for 
capitalists  and  police? 

"  A.     Yes;  every  workingman  ought  to  have  them. 

"  Q.  Did  he  say  when  he  brought  this  first  bomb 
where  and  when  he  expected  to  use  it? 

"  A.  Yes;  they  were  applied  on  occasions  of  strikes 
and  where  there  were  meetings  of  workingmen  and  were 
disturbed  by  the  police. 

"  Q.  Was  it  Engel  or  was  it  Lingg  that  told  you  that 
the  bombs  were  good  food  for  capitalists  and  police? 

"  A.     Both  of  them  said  so. 

"  Q.  When  was  it  that  you  agreed  to  go  to  Clybourn 
avenue  the  night  of  the  4th? 

"  A.     When  the  bombs  were  done. 

"  Q.  Was  that  the  first  talk  about  where  you  should 
go  that  night  after  the  bombs  were  done? 

"  A.     No;  it  had  been  mentioned  before. 

"  Q.  When  was  it  first  mentioned  that  you  should 
go  to  Clybourn  avenue? 

"  A.     When  the  bombs  were  done  that  afternoon. 

"  Q.  Did  you  all  agree  to  go  to  Clybourn  avenue 
that  night? 

"  A.     No;  that  I  cannot  say;  I  do  not  know. 

"  Q.  Did  you  agree  to  go  anywhere  else  besides 
Clybourn  avenue  that  night? 

"  A.  No,  it  was  said  that  the  bombs  were  to  be  taken 
to  Clybourn  avenue  that  evening. 

"  Q.  Was  it  agreed  that  the  bombs  were  to  be  taken 
anywhere  else  than  Clybourn  avenue? 

"  A.     No;  I  don't  believe  so. 

"  Then  you  were  not  making  bombs  to  be  taken  any- 
where else  than  Clybourn  avenue? 

"  A.  Yes,  they  were  to  be  for  use  on  that  evening, 
not  just  for  use  at  Clybourn  avenue. 

"  Q.  They  were  to  be  taken  to  Clybourn  avenue  first 
and  from  there  to  be  taken  away? 

"  A.  Yes,  when  they  were  taken  to  Clybourn  avenue 
I  don't  know  whether  they  were  to  remain  there  or  were 
to  be  taken  to  further  places.  *  *  * 

"  Q.  Then  it  was  not  agreed  that  any  of  the  bombs 
manufactured  on  the  afternoon  of  the  4th  of  May  should 
be  taken  to  the  Haymarket,  was  it? 


"  A.     No;  I  didn't  hear  anything  of  that. 

"  Q.  Then  you  were  not  making  bombs  to  take  to  the 
Haymarket  and  destroy  police? 

"A.     No;  they  were  made  for  use  on  that  evening. 

"  Q.  Do  you  know  of  the  manufacture  of  any  bombs 
that  day  or  any  other  day,  to  be  used  at  the  Haymarket 
meeting  on  the  night  of  the  4th  of  May? 

"  A.     Yes;  I  do. 

"  Q.  You  say  you  know  where  bombs  were  made 
which  were  to  be  taken  to  the  Haymarket? 

"  A.     Before  the  4th  of  May? 

"  Q.     To  be  used  the  night  of  the  4th  of  May? 

"A.     No;  I  don't  know  as  to  that. 

"  Q.  Then  I  repeat;  you  don't  know  of  the  making  of 
any  bombs  which  were  to  be  used  the  night  of  the  4th  of 
May  at  the  Haymarket,  do  you? 

"  A.  They  were  made  everywhere,  to  be  used  against 
capital  and  police. 

"  Q.  ,  Do  you  know  of  the  manufacture  of  a  single 
bomb  by-  any  person  at  any  place  to  be  used  at  the 
Haymarket  meeting  on  the  night  of  the  4th  of  May? 

"A.  No;  I  cannot  say  that  one  single  one  was  made 
for  that  purpose. 

"  Q.  Do  you  know  who  had  a  bomb  at  the  Haymar- 
ket on  the  night  of  the  4th  of  May? 

"  A.     No;  I  cannot  say. 

"  Q.  Do  you  know  anybody  who  was  expected  to  be 
at  the  Haymarket? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.  You  knew  of  no  person,  then,  that  you  expected 
would  go  to  the  Haymarket  meeting,  or  said  that  they 
were  going  to  the  Haymarket  meeting,  did  you,  on  the 
night  of  the  4th  of  May? 

"  A.  I  don't  know  of  a  certain  person  that  was  to  be 
there. 

"  Q.  Then  it  was  not  agreed  by  you  and  the  other 
men  that  made  those  bombs  that  any  of  you  should  go  to 
the  Haymarket  meeting,  was  it? 

"A.     O,  yes;  there  was  plenty  said  about  it. 

"  Q.  Was  there  any  one  that  said  they  were  going  to 
the  Haymarket  meeting — an}'  of  the  crowd  that  helped 
to  make  the  bombs? 


"  A.     No,  of  that  I  did  not  hear. 

"  Q.  Did  you  ever  help  to  manufacture  any  other  bombs 
except  what  you  made  at  your  own  house? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.  Did  you  ever  see  any  other  bombs  being  manu- 
factured except  what  you  made  at  your  own  house? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.  Then  you  know  nothing  of  the  manufacture  of 
any  bombs  anywhere  to  be  taken  to  the  Haymarket  meet- 
ing on  the  night  of  the  4th  of  May? 

•'  A.  There  had  some  been  made  which  were  for  no 
other  purpose  but  for  that  use." 

(Answer  ordered  stricken  out.) 

BERTHA  SELIGER,  wife  of  William  Seliger,  testified 
(I,  572)  that  on  Tuesday,  the  4th  of  May,  there  were 
six  or  eight  or  perhaps  more  men  at  her  house;  among 
them  were  Huebner,  Heurnann,  Thielen,  Lingg  and  her 
husband,  with  others  she  did  not  know;  they  were  there 
until  evening,  perhaps  past  7  o'clock;  they  were  always 
going  and  coming;  some  went  and  some  came;  mostly  in 
the  afternoon;  they  were  in  the  front  room  and  in  Lingg's 
room,  working  at  bombs. 

"  Q.     In  what  room  were  you? 

"  A.  I  was  in  the  kitchen,  and  when  supper  was 
ready  I  went  into  the  bedroom.  I  was  so  mad  I  could 
have  thrown  them  all  out. 

"  Q.     Are  you  a  socialist  yourself? 

"  A.     No;  they  always  fooled  me." 

Lingg  frequently  made  bombs;  she  had  seen  him  cast; 
sawr  him  melt  lead  on  the  kitchen  stove;  twice  Heumann 
was  with  him,  once  her  husband  and  Thielen,  and  fre- 
quently he  worked  by  himself;  he  said  to  her,  "Don't 
"  act  so  foolishly;  you  might  do  something,  too."  *  * 

"  Q.  Where  was  Lingg  on  Monday,  the  day  before 
the  bomb  was  thrown? 


"  A.  He  was  away;  I  don't  know  where.  In  the 
morning  some  young  fellows  ca,me  and  had  their  names 
put  on  the  list  of  the  union,  and  then  he  was  writing 
pretty  much  all  day." 

On  Wednesday,  the  day  after  the  Haymarket  meeting, 
she  saw  Lingg  at  the  house  in  the  forenoon.  "  I  heard 
"  some  knocking  and  I  went  in,  and  I  said  to  him,  '  Mr. 
"  Lingg,  what  are  you  doing  there?  I  will  not  suffer 
"that';  and  he  was  tearing  everything  loose  below;  and 
"he  sent  that  man  Lehmann  after  wall  paper,  and  he 
"  wanted  to  cover  up  everything  afterward — nail  up 
"everything  afterward;  I  said,  '  Mr.  Lingg,  what  are  you 
"  doing  there?  I  will  not  suffer  such  foolishness';  he  had 
"  the  wall  paper  already  there  and  he  said  to  me,  '  I  sup- 
"  pose  you  are  crazy;  you  ought  to  have  said  before  that 
"you  would  not  suffer  that;  then  I  will  have  to  look  for 
"  a  place  where  I  am  allowed  to  do  that,.' '; 

***** 

"  Q.     Where  was  it  that  he  was  tearing  up  things? 

"  A.  That  was  all  along  about  in  the  closet;  he  had 
loosened  the  boards  and  taken  out  the  mortar. 

"  Q.      The  base-boards — the  boards  at  the  bottom? 

"A.  Yes,  the  base-boards  all  around;  he  said  that  if 
he  needed  something  he  could  not  first  go  to  the  west 
side  to  get  it." 

Lingg  had  a  trunk  which  he  kept  in  his  bedroom. 
The  witness  then  identified  the  ladle  (a  photograph  of 
which  appears  as  People's  Exhibit  132)  saying,  "  He  was 
"  always  casting  with  that." 

"  Q.  Lingg  had  some  wall  paper,  didn't  he,  when  he 
was  making  the  noise  and  taking  off  the  boards? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  He  brought  some  wall  paper  from  down-town 
and  bought  it  himself,  didn't  he? 

"  A.     No;  there  was  a  young  man  with   him,  the  son 


i97 

of  Lehmann,  who  got  the  wall  paper  for  him  and  the 
starch. 

"  Q.  Didn't  Mr.  Lingg  say  this,  that  the  boards  were 
whitewashed  and  that  it  got  all  over  his  clothes  in  the 
closet,  and  that  .he  took  that  off  for  the  purpose  of  putting 
on  wall  paper  so  that  he  could  keep  his  clothes  clean? 

"A.  I  said  to  him:  '  I  will  not  suffer  that.  What  will 
the  landlord  say  when  he  comes?'  There  had  never  been 
paper  there,  and  he  answered:  '  Well,  then  I  will  say  to 
him  that  I  will  not  dirty  my  clothes.' 

"  Q.  How  high  from  the  floor  were  these  boards  that 
he  took  oft? 

"  A.     About  that  high  (a  foot  high.) 

"  Q.     How  high  was  the  closet? 

"  A.     That  I  don't  know. 

"  Q.     As  high  as  the  ceiling,  wasn't  it? 

"  A.     No;  it  did  not  reach  up  that  far. 

"  Q.  The  wall  was  white  and  would  rub  off  on  his 
clothes,  wouldn't  they? 

"  A.  He  did  do  that  only  on  purpose,  because  he  in- 
tended to  put  those  things  in  the  wall. 

"  Q.     Did  you'see  him  put  anything  in  the  wall? 

"  A.  No;  there  was  nothing  in  at  that  time.  I 
stopped  him  at  that  juncture. 

"  Q.     You  don't  like  Mr.  Lingg  very  well,  do  you? 

"  A.  No,  because  he  always  had  wrong  things  in  his 
head." 

GUSTAV  LEHMANN  testified  ( J,  198)  that  on  Tues- 
day, May  4th,  he  worked  until  3  o'clock;  that  when 
he  quit  work  he  wanted  to  go  home,  but  met  a  country- 
man of  his  named  Schmidecke,  who  wanted  to  go  to 
Lingg's;  they  arrived  at  Lingg's  about  5  o'clock;  Lingg 
and  Seliger,  and  one  whose  name  he  did  not  know  and 
Huebner  were  there;  they  staid  at  Lingg's  perhaps  ten 
minutes;  the  persons  there  were  busy  in  the  bedroom; 
what  they  were  doing  he  did  not  understand;  they  had  a 
cloth  tied  around  their  face;  this  countryman  wanted  to 
buy  a  revolver;  he  went  home  with  the  countryman;  aft- 


ip8 

ervvard  he  returned    to  Lingg's  at  perhaps  7  o'clock,  and 
staid  about  ten  minutes. 

"  Q.     What  did  you  see  there? 

"A.  //  was  the  same  thing  as  at  my  first  visit;  they 
were  busy  in  the  bedroom  and  Hucbner  ivas  working  at 
some  strings,  cutting  it  off  into  pieces. 

"  Q.     What  kind  of  string? 

"  A.     A  fuse. 

'<  Q.     What  else  did  you  see? 

"  A.  I  did  not  go  into  the  bedroom,  but  these  fuse 
and  caps  they  were  making  outside  in  the  front  room. 

"  Q.     Did  Lingg  give  you  anything  that  afternoon? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     What  did  he  give  you? 

"  A.  A  small  hand  satchel  with  a  box  in  it,  and  three 
bombs  and  two  coils  of  fuse  andvS.ome  caps. 

"  Q.  Look  at  the  tin  box  which  I  now  show  you.  Is 
that  the  can  which  he  gave  you? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     What  did  he  give  you  besides  this  box? 

"  A.     Everything  was  contained  in  the  sachel. 

"Q.     By  sachel  do  you  mean  this  tin  box? 

"A.  No;  it  is  a  hand  trunk;  a  small  trunk  carried  in 
the  hand,  covered  with  leather. 

"  Q.  Look  at  the  box  of  caps  which  I  now  show  you. 
Did  he  give  you  anything  like  that? 

"  A.     I  found  that  afterwards  in  the  sachel. 

"  Q.     Was  there  anything  in  the  tin  box? 

"  A.     It  was  said  that  dynamite  was  in  it. 

"  Q.  How  much  of  the  material — whatever  it  was — 
was  there  in  the  box? 

"  A.     Well,  the  can  was  nearly  full. 

"  Q.     What  kind  of  bombs  did  he  give  you? 

"  A.     Three  round  bombs. 

"Q.     Did  you  have  any   kind  except  the  round   ones? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.  What  did  Lingg  say  to  you  when  he  gave  you 
those  things? 

"A.  He  wanted  me  to  keep  them;  he  desired  me  to 
keep  them  in  a  manner  that  no  one  could  find  them. 

"  Q.     What  did  you  do  with  that? 


"  A.  I  took  it  home  with  me  to  the  wood-shed.  I 
got  up  at  3  o'clock  that  night  and  carried  them  away  to 
the  prairie. 

"  Q.  After  you  ate  supper  on  Tuesday  night  where 
did  you  go? 

"  A.     Was  about  to  go  to  Jhlich's  Hall. 

"  Q.     Did  you  go  to  Uhlich's  Hall? 

"  A.  Yes,  but  no  carpenters'  meeting  was  taking 
place. 

"  Q.     Then  where  did  you  go? 

"  A.  I  was  about  to  go  home,  but  we  went  to  Thoer- 
inger  Hall  and  took  some  beer — 58  Clybourn  avenue. 

"Q.     Is  that  NefTs  Hall? 

«« A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  Lingg  about  going 
there,  and  if  so,  what? 

"  A.  The  evening  before  as  we  were  going  home 
from  the  meeting  on  the  west  side,  at  54  West  Lake 
street,  he  told  us  that  if  we  wanted  to  know  something 
that  we  should  come  to  the  hall  at  58  Clybourn  avenue. 

"  Q.     Is  that  the  reason  why  you  went  to  Neff  's  Hall? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     Who  went  with  you  to  Neff's  Hall? 

"  A.     My  countryman  was  with  me. 

"  Q.     What  is  his  name? 

"  A.     Schmidecke. 

"  Q.     How  long  did  you  stay  at  Neff's  Hall? 

"  A.     Not  very  long — perhaps  ten  minutes. 

"  Q.     About  what  time  did  you  get  there? 

"  A.     About  half  past  9." 

He  saw  no  one  but  the  bar-keeper,  and  they  left  the 
place  and  went  up  Clybourn  avenue  to  Larrabee  street; 
they  met  Seliger  and  Lingg  standing  on  the  sidewalk  on 
Larrabee  street  near  Clybourn  avenue.  "  We  also  stood 
"  still  there  with  them,  but  one  remarked  that  we  should 
"  tiot  keep  together,  we  Jour,  and  then  we  went  apart. 
"  *  *  *  I  don't  know  whether  it  was  Seliger  or 
"  Lingg  who  said  that. 


2OO 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  Thielen  that  night? 

"  A.     Yes;  near  North  avenue  we  met  Thielen. 

"  Q.     What  was  he  doing? 

"(Objected  to;  objection  sustained.)" 

Witness  got  home  that  night  about  n  o'clock  and  went 
to  bed;  at  half  past  2  or  3  o'clock  he  got  up  out  of  bed 
and  took  the  dynamite  away,  took  it  behind  Ogden's 
Grove,  on  the  prairie;  afterwards,  on  the  ipth  or  2Oth  of 
May,  he  went  there  with  Officer  Hoffmann,  where  they 
got  the  bombs,  dynamite,  fuse  and  caps. 

MORITZ  NEFF,  the  keeper  of  the  place  at  58  Clybourne 
avenue,  testified  (J,  262)  that  on  Tuesday  night  Lingg,  Sel- 
iger  and  a  man  named  Muensenberger  came  to  his  saloon 
about  half-past  8;  Muensenberger  carried  a  common 
bag  about  a  foot  and  a  half  long  and'  six  inches  wide;  he 
first  put  it  upon  the  counter  in  the  saloon  and  then  upon 
the  floor;  Lingg  asked  if  any  one  had  been  inquiring  for 
him  previously;  that  was  about  ten  or  fifteen  minutes 
after  8;  Muensenberger  picked  up  the  bag  and  went 
out  of  the  side  door,  followed  by  Lingg  and  Seliger; 
among  those  present  at  the  saloon  that  night  were  Hueb- 
ner  and  theLehmanns;  Lingg  and  Seliger  returned  to  the 
saloon  about  ir  o'clock;  several  others  came  in  just 
previously,  who,  it  appeared  from  their  conversation,  had 
been  at  the  Haymarket,  and  among  them  was  Jake  Salig, 
the  cigar-maker,  the  Hermanns,  the  two  Lehmanns,  the 
two  Hagemanns  and  Hirschberger;  about  that  time  he 
heard  of  the  bomb  having  been  thrown  at  the  Haymarket; 
the  parties  were  conversing  about  it;  he  heard  some  one 
say  in  aloud  voice:  "  That  is  your  fault,"  but  did  not  hear 
any  response. 


2OI 

From  the  foregoing  evidence  it  appears  that  at  the 
Greif's  Hall  meeting  Fischer  proposed  the  use  of  the 
word  "  Ruhe  "  as  a  signal  which  was  to  be  published  in 
the  letter-box  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  the  publication  of 
which  in  that  paper  was  to  signify  that  the  revolution  had 
begun,  as  it  "  should  only  be  inserted  in  the  newspaper  if 
"  a  downright  revolution  had  occurred."  Lingg,  whom 
counsel  for  the  defendants  claim  was  not  present  at  the 
Greif's  Hall  meeting,  told  Seliger,  when  Seliger  first  saw 
the  word  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  that  its  meaning  was 
that  everything'  should  go  upside  dotvn — topsy-turvy. 
The  publication  of  this  word  was  entrusted  to  the  com- 
mittee of  which  Kremer  was  a  member,  and,  what  is  of 
vast  significance  in  this  case,  the  same  committee  which  was 
to  have  charge  of  the  Haymarket  meeting.  This  committee 
was  to  "  observe  the  movement  not  only  on  the  Hay- 
"  market  square,  but  in  the  different  parts  of  the  city,  and 
"  if  a  conflict  should  happen,  then  they  should  report  to 
"  us.  *  *  *  If  it  happened  in  the  day-time  then  they 
"  should  cause  the  publication  of  the  word  '  Ruhe.'  At 
"  that  meeting  Schnaubelt  proposed  that  '  our  members 
•"  in  other  places  '  should  be  informed  of  the  resolution 
"  then  adopted,  so  that  the  'revolution  should  commence 
"  in  other  places,'  and  it  was  expected  'that  there  should 
-"  be  a  gathering  of  about  twenty-five  thousand  people  at 
«  the  Haymarket.'" 

RUHE 

appeared  in  the  letter-box  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  on 
Tuesday,  May  /jth.  The  original  copy  from  which  the 
word  was  set  up  was  introduced  in  evidence  in  the  case, 
and  is  in  the  handwriting  of  the  defendant,  August  Spies 
(I,  446),  emphasized  by  being  heavily  underscored 
and  marked  as  follows  (People's  Exhibit,  10): 


2O2 


33riefRasten. 
-Ruhe! 

The  sinster  significance  of  this  word  "  Ruhe  "  appears 
from  the  testimony  of  Spies  himself.  He  said  (N, 
63)  that  he  had  received  through  the  mail  a  request  to 
publish  it  in  prominent  letters  in  the  "  briefkasten "  of 
the  Arbeiter  Zeitung;  that  he  wrote  out  the  word,  sent 
it  up  to  the  compositors'  room,  and  that  about  a  little 
after  3  o'clock  one  of  the  employes  of  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung,  Balthazar  Rau,  whose  name  frequently  appears 
in  the  evidence  in  this  case,  asked  him  if  the  word  was 
in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung;  upon  being  told  that  it  was,  he 
asked  if  he,  Spies,  knew  what  it  meant,  "  I  told  him  I 
"  did  not.  He  said  the  armed  sections  held  a  meeting 
"  last  night,  and  they  have  resolved  to  put  in  that  word; 
"  that  it  means  as  much  as  the  armed  section  should  keep 
"  themselves  in  readiness;  prepare  themselves,  that  in 
"  case  the  police  should  precipitate  a  riot  that  they 
"  should  come  to  the  assistance  of  the  attacked.  I  asked 
"  him  where  he  heard  it;  he  said  it  was  a  rumor,  and  I 
"  sent  up  for  Fischer,  who  had  invited  me  to  speak  at 
"•  that  meeting  in  the  evening,  and  Fischer  came  down, 
"  and  I  asked  him  in  regard  to  it;  he  said,  '  Oh,  it  was 
"  just  a  harmless  signal!'  I  asked  him  if  it  had  any  ref- 
"  erence  to  the  meeting  on  the  Hay  market;  he  said  none 
"  whatever;  he  said  then  it  was  merely  a  signal  for  the 
"  boys;  for  those  who  were  armed,  to  keep  their  -powder 
"  dry  in  case  they  might  be  called  upon  in  the  next  day  to 
"fight.  I  told  Rau  it  was  a  very  foolish  thing;  that  it  is 
"  all  nonsense,  and  should  be  stopped,  or  at  least  I  did 
"  not  .think  there  was  much  rational  sense  in  that,  and 


2O3 

"  asked  him  if  he  knew  how  that  could  be  undone — how 
"  it  could  be  managed  so  it  would  be  stopped;  he  said 
"  he  knew  some  persons  who  had  something  to  say  in 
"  the  armed  organizations,  and  I  told  him  to  go  and  tell 
"  them  that  the  word  was  put  in  by  mistake,  and  he  did." 

Rau  was  not  called  by  the  defense  to  corroborate  this 
statement. 

The  same  day  Fischer  wrote  and  had  printed  (K,  316) 
the  following  circular  (which  was  circulated  to  some  ex- 
tent), calling  the  Haymarket  meeting,  a  portion  of  which 
is  in  English  and  a  portion  of  which  is  in  German,  both 
being  the  same: 

Upon  his  arrest  Fischer  at  first  denied  that  he  knew 
anything  about  it,  but  later  admitted  that  he  got  it  up.  (I, 

354-) 


ATTENTION,  WORKINGMEN  ! 

GREAT 

MASS-MEETING 

TO-NIGHT,    AT    7130    O'CLOCK, 

AT    THE 

HAYMARKET,  Randolph  St.,  bet.  Desplaines  and  Halsted. 


Good  speakers   will  be  present  to   denounce    the   latest 

atrocious  act  of  the  police,  the  shooting  of  our 

fellow-workmen  yesterday  afternoon. 


Workingmen,  Arm  Yourselves  and  Appear  in  Full  Force! 

THE  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE. 


204 

After  a  number  of  copies  of  this  circular  had  been 
printed,  the  words,  "  Workingmen,  arm  yourselves  and 
"  appear  in  full  force,"  were  stricken  out,  and  a  large 
number  of  the  circulars,  identical  with  the  one  above  de- 
scribed, except  for  the  omission  of  those  words,  were 
printed  and  extensively  circulated.  Spies  accounts  for 
the  striking  out  of  those  words  from  the  circular  by  say- 
ing he  told  Fischer  that  he  would  not  appear  at  the  meet- 
ing if  the  circular  with  those  words  in  it  were  distributed; 
his  reason  for  having  them  struck  out  appears  from 
his  evidence.  (N,  97).  "Because  I  thought  it  was 
"  ridiculous  to  put  a  phrase  like  that  in  a  circular;  it 
"  would  prevent  people  from  attending  the  meeting  in  the 
"  first  place;  and  in  the  second  place,  I  don't  think  it  was 
"  a  proper  thing  to  do.  One  of  the  reasons  I  have  already 
"  stated;  another  reason  is  that  there  was  at  the  time 
"  some  excitement,  at  least,  even  though  it  was  not  very 
"  great,  and  a  call  for  arms  like  that  might  not  have  been 
"  just  the  thing  at  the  time;  it  might  have  caused  trouble 
"  between  the  police  and  the  attendants  at  that  meeting. 

"  Q.  You  wanted  it  stricken  out  so  that  it  would 
prevent  trouble  between  the  police  at  that  meeting,  that 
was  one  of  the  reasons? 

"A.  I  did  not  anticipate  anything  of  the  kind,  but  I 
thought  it  was  not  the  proper  thing  to  do.  The  main 
reason — the  principal  reason  1  had  was  that  it  -would 
imply  keep  people  away  from  the  Haymarket." 

That  his  real  and  only  reason  for  wanting  it  stricken 
out  was  because  its  insertion  would  prevent  people  from 
attending  the  Haymarket  meeting,  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion, when  we  consider  that  less  than  twenty-four  hours 
before  he  himself  had  written  and  had  had  printed  and  cir- 
culated with  the  greatest  dispatch  the  "  Revenge  "  cir- 
cular, which  was  issued  and  circulated  for  the  express 


205 

and  only  reason  of  inciting  the  laboring  classes  to  arm  and 
revenge  themselves. 

On  Tuesday  night,  May  4th,  there  was  a  meeting  of 
the  American  group  held  at  the  office  of  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung.  At  that  meeting  there  were  present,  of  the  de- 
fendants, Parsons,  Fielden  and  Schwab,  and  a  number  of 
other  persons.  The  notice  for  the  meeting  was  published 
by  Parsons.  It  is  the  only  meeting,  so  far  as  the  record 
shows,  of  that  group  ever  held  at  that  place. 


VI. 

THE  HAYMARKET  MEETING. 

The  Haymarket  meeting  was  called  for  7:30  o'clock  in 
the  evening.  The  police  did  not  appear  until  after  10 
o'clock.  Instead  of  twenty-five  thousand  workingmen 
appearing,  as  was  expected,  there  were  at  no  time  more 
than  one  thousand  or  two  thousand  present.  During  the 
early  part  of  the  meeting  those  who  were  present 
wandered  aimlessly  about  or  gathered  in  small  groups  at 
different  places  on  the  square.  Among  those  present 
during  the  early  part  of  the  evening  was  the  defendant 
Engel,  who  was  in  company  with  Fischer.  A  few 
minutes  after  9  o'clock  August  Spies  called  the  meeting 
to  order,  not  on  the  Haymarket,  but  on  Desplaines  street, 
a  short  distance  north  of  Randolph  street,  just  opposite  an 
alley  described  in  the  evidence  as  Crane's  alley.  The 
speakers  stood  upon  a  wagon  at  the  edge  of  the  sidewalk 
on  the  east  side  of  Desplaines  street,  to  the  north  of 
which,  a  few  feet  distant,  was  another  wagon  upon  which 
were  a  number  of  people,  and  among  whom  was  Mrs. 
Parsons  and  several  others. 


2OO 

The  crowd  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  wagon  was 
composed  of  socialists  who  displayed  their  enthusiasm 
from  time  to  time.  The  outer  edge  of  the  crowd  was 
composed  of  persons,  many  of  whom  were  not  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  speakers,  the  whole  numbering  from  five 
hundred  to  a  thousand  people. 

Spies  spoke  first,  followed  by  Parsons,  and  he  by 
Fielden.  While  Fielden  was  speaking,  and  a  few  min- 
utes before  the  police  appeared,  a  dark  cloud,  threatening 
rain,  came  up.  At  that  time  a  portion  of  those  present 
left,  some  of  whom,  chiefly  anarchists,  went  to  Zepf's 
Hall,  at  the  north-east  corner  of  Lake  and  Desplaines 
streets,  about  half  a  block  distant  from  the  speakers' 
wagon. 

During  the  whole  of  the  evening  there  was  scattered 
through  the  crowd  and  moving  from  point  to  point 
several  reporters  and  a  number  of  detectives  dressed  in 
citizens'  clothes. 


(A.)     THE  SPEECHES. 

PAUL  C.  HULL  (K,  119),  a  reporter  who  was  present 
at  the  meeting,  describes  the  speeches  as  he  recollected 
them,  as  follows: 

"  Mr.  Spies  told  his  version  of  the  McCormick  riots, 
which,  as  I  remember,  was,  that  he  had  been  charged,  he 
said,  with  being  responsible  for  the  riot  and  for  the  death 
of  these  men.  He  said — I  believe  he  said  that  Mr.  Mc- 
Cormick charged  him  with  it,  or  else  somebody  had  said 
that  McCormick  had  charged  him  with  it.  He  said  Mr. 
McCormick  was  a  liar;  that  he  (McCormick)  was  re- 
sponsible for  the  death  of  our  brothers,  the  six  men  which 
he  claimed  was  killed  at  that  riot;  that  he  had  addressed 
a  meeting  on  Jhe  prairie,  a  meeting  of  his  countrymen,  I 
believe,  he  characterized  them;  and  when  the  bell  of  the 


207 

factory  rang,  or  at  some  poinc  in  the  afternoon,  a  body  of 
the  meeting  which  he  was  addressing  detached  them- 
selves and  went  towards  the  factory,  and  that  there  the 
riot  occurred.  That  was  in  explanation  of  his  connection 
with  it.  He  then  touched  upon  the  dominating  question 
of  labor  and  capital,  and  their  relations  very  briefly,  and 
asked  what  meant  this  array  of  Galling  guns,  infantry 
ready  to  arm,  patrol  wagons  and  policemen.  And  my 
recollection  is  that  he  drew  the  deduction  from  that,  that 
it  was  the  government  or  the  capitalists  preparing  to 
crush  them,  should  they  try  to  right  their  wrongs. 

"  Q.  Did  he  say  anything  in  that  speech  about  the 
means  to  be  employed  against  that  capitalistic  force? 

"A.  I  don't  remember  that  he  did  on  that  occasion; 
no,  sir. 

"  Q.     Tell  us   as  near  as  you  can  what  Parsons  said? 

"  A.  He  dealt  considerably  in  labor  statistics  in  the 
first  part  of  his  speech.  He  followed  the  making  of  a 
dollar — not  the  minting  of  it — but  the  earning  of  it.  I 
believe  he  drew  the  conclusion  that  the  capitalists  got 
eighty-five  cents  out  of  the  dollar,  and  the  laboring  man 
fifteen  cents.  He  said  that  this  uprising  of  the  working- 
men,  this  eight-hour  agitation,  and  the  agitation  of  the 
social  question,  was  a  still  hunt  of  the  workingmen  after 
this  other  eighty-five  cents.  He  also  dealt  with  the 
social  question,  the  question  of  socialism,  of  capital  and 
labor,  and  he  advised  the  using  of  violent  means  by  the 
workingmen  to  right  their  wrongs;  that  law  and  govern- 
ment was  the  tool  of  the  wealthy  to  oppress  the  poor; 
that  the  ballot  was  no  way  in  which  to  right  their  wrongs; 
that  by  physical  force  was  the  only  way  in  which  they 
could  right  their  wrongs.  That  was  the  tenor  of  his 
speech. 

"  Q.  What  was  the  manner  of  the  crowd  on  the  re- 
ception or  receiving  of  the  speeches? 

"  A.  That  portion  of  the  crowd  around  the  speakers' 
wagon  was  turbulent  and  noisy,  as  regards  breaking 
in  on  the  speakers  with  exclamations  of  '  Hang  him,' 
when  McCormick's  name,  for  instance,  was  mentioned, 
or  «  Throw  him  into  the  lake,'  '  Hang  him  to  a  lamp- 
post ' — some  such  remark  would  be  made  when  any 
prominent  Chicago  capitalist's  name  would  be  used. 


208 

WHITING  ALLEN  (K,  146),  a  reporter,  was 
present  at  the  meeting.  He  heard  Parsons.  About 
the  only  thing  that  I  could  quote  exact  was  that  at 
one  time  he  said:  "  What  good  are  these  strikes 
"  going  to  do  ?  Do  you  think  that  anything  will 
"  be  accomplished  by  them  ?  Do  you  think  the  working- 
"men  are  going  to  gain  their  point  ?  No,  no,  they  will 
"  not.  The  result  of  them  will  be  that  you  will  have  to  go 
"  back  to  work  for  less  money  than  you  are  getting." 
That  is  his  language,  in  effect.  *  *  At  one  time  he 
mentioned  the  name  of  Jay  Gould;  there  were  cries  from 
the  crowd:  "  Hang  Jay  Gould;  throw  him  into  the  lake," 
and  so  on.  He  said:  "No,  no,  that  would  not  do  any 
"  good.  If  you  would  hang  Jay  Gould  now,  there  would 
"  be  another,  and  perhaps  a  hundred,  up  to-morrow.  It 
"  don't  do  any  good  to  hang  one  man.  You  have  to  kill 
"  them  all,  or  get  rid  of  them  all."  Then  he  went  on  to 
say  that  it  was  not  the  individual  always,  but  the  system; 
'that  the  government  should  be  destroyed.  It  was  the 
wrong  government,  and  these  people  who  supported  it 
had  to  be  destroyed  en  masse. 

"  Q.  Did  you  hear  Parsons  in  his  speech  say  anything 
about  '  to  arms  ?  ' 

"  A.  I  heard  that  cry,  and  I  cannot  tell  just  in  what 
connection. 

"  Q.     From  whom  ? 

"A.     Parsons. 

"  Q.     What  was  the  temper  of  that  crowd  ? 

"  A.  It  was  extremely  turbulent,  especially  after  that 
speech  he  made  about  the  workingmen  not  gaining  any- 
thing by  the  strike.  *  *  The  crowd  seemed  to  me  to 
be  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  the  speaker,  and  ap- 
plauded almost  every  utterance. 


2  Op 

CHARLES  R.  TUTTLE  (K,  158),  a  reporter,  who  was 
present  at  the  meeting,  says: 

i<  I  should  say  the  crowd  was  made  up  of  two  classes 
of  persons,  and  the  majority  of  them  were  opposed  to 
the  sentiments  of  the  speaker,  and  a  minority  of  those 
present  were  a  good  deal  more  enthusiastic  than  the 
speaker  himself. 

"  Q.  Where  was  this  crowd  that  was  enthusiastic; 
near  the  wagon,  or  around  it?  . 

"  A.  Forming  a  semicircle  around  the  speaker's 
wagon  on  the  south-west,  and  some  were  on  the  north  of 
the  wagon." 

Says  that  portion  of  Parsons'  speech  created  a  great 
deal  of  excitement  and  many  responses  from  the  audience. 
He  says: 

"The  same  parties  who  had  spoken  when  he  referred 
to  Gould,  I  think  the  same,  one  of  them  any  way,  because 
I  had  my  eye  on  him  for  two  or  three  minutes,  two  min- 
utes, I  should  say.  I  think  I  could  describe  the  men,  and 
would  know  if  I  saw  him — he  stuck  up  his  hand  like  that 
(illustrating),  with  a  revolver  in  it  and  said:  'We  will 
shoot  the  devils,'  or  some  such  expression.  And  I  saw 
two  others  sticking  up  their  hands  near  to  him,  who  made 
similar  expressions,  and  had  what  I  took  to  be  at  that 
time  revolvers;  but  this  one  man  I  speak  of,  I  took  par- 
ticular notice  of  him,  and  remember  his  appearance  and 
saw  his  revolver  very  plainly  in  his  right  hand;  and  he 
grasped  it  about  the  center  of  the  weapon  and  stuck  it 
up  in  front  of  the  speaker." 

The  witness  did  not  know  whether  the  persons  with 
the  revolvers  attracted  the  attention  of  Parsons  or  not. 

EDWARD  COSGROVE  (K,  166),  a  detective,  who  was 
present  at  the  meeting,  describes  the  speeches  about  as 
they  were  described  by  the  other  witnesses;  says  that  the 
enthusiastic  portion  of  the  crowd  was  close  to  the  wagon, 
and  that  that  portion  cheered  enthusiastically.  He  says 


2IO 

that  Parsons  talked  of  the  police  and  capitalists  and 
militia  and  Pinkertons.  He  said  he  was  down  in  the 
Hocking  Valley  region,  and  said  they  were  only  getting 
24  cents  a  day,  and  that  was  less  than  Chinamen,  and  he 
said:  "  My  friends,  you  will  be  worse  than  Chinamen,  if 
"  you  don't  arm  yourselves,"  and  he  said  they  would  be 
held  responsible  for  the  blood  that  would  flow  in  the  near 
future. 

TIMOTHY  McKsouGH  (K,  174),  a  detective,  describes 
the  speeches  as  being  of  the  same  general  effect  as 
the  other  witnesses.  Says  that  Parsons  said:  "  I  am 
"  a  socialist  from  the  top  of  my  head  to  the  soles  of  my 
"  feet.  I  will  express  my  sentiments  if  I  die  before 
"  morning."  He  said  that  very  strongly,  and  made  a 
great  commotion.  That  seemed  to  kind  of  catch  the 
crowd  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  wagon  again,  and  they 
let  out  a  great  cheer.  He  also  says  that  when  Fielden 
advised  them  to  kill  the  law,  to  stab  it,  throttle  it  or  it 
will  throttle  you,  the  crowd  around  the  neighborhood  of 
the  wagon  became  greatly  excited,  whereupon  he  (wit- 
ness) went  over  to  the  station  and  reported  to  Inspector 
Bonfield. 

EDGAR  E.  OWEN  (K,  200),  a  reporter  for  the  Times, 
who  was  at  the  meeting,  describes  the  speeches  about  as 
the  other  witnesses,  and  says  that  the  crowd  just  about 
the  wagon  cheered  wildly. 

G.  P.  ENGLISH  (K,  273)  testified  that  he  was  a  short- 
hand reporter  for  the  Tribune;  that  he  attended  the  Hay- 
market  meeting;  saw  Mayor  Harrison  there  and  inter- 
viewed him;  then  went  over  to  where  the  meeting  was 
called  to  order;  he  was  present  when  Spies  called  the 


211 

meeting  to  order;  that  he  stood  fifteen  or  twenty  feet  from 
the  wagon,  taking  short-hand  notes.  He  was  standing  up; 
had  his  note-book  in  his  overcoat  pocket  and  a  short  pen- 
cil. "  This  is  Spies:  '  Mr.  Parsons  and  Mr.  Fielden  will 
"  be  here  in  a  very  short  time  to  address  you.  I  will  say, 
"  however,  first,  this  meeting  was  called  for  the  purpose 
"  of  discussing  the  general  situation  of  the  eight-hour 
"  strike  and  the  events  which  have  taken  place  during  the 
"  last  forty-eight  hours;  it  seems  to  have  been  the  opinion 
"  of  the  authorities  that  this  meeting  has  been  c:illed  for 
"  the  purpose  of  raising  a  little  row  and  disturbance; 
"  this,  however,  was  not  the  intention  of  the  committee 
"  that  called  the  meeting.  The  committee  that  called  the 
"  meeting  wanted  to  tell  you  certain  facts,  of  whicii  you 
"  are  probably  aware. 

"  The  capitalistic  press  has  been  misleading,  misrep- 
"  resenting,  the  cause  of  labor  for  the  last  two  weeks, 
"  so  much  so  " — then  there  is  something  that  is  unin- 
telligible, that  I  can't  read  at  all,  some  of  it  went 
off  on  the  side  of  my  pocket.  I  did  not  have 
much  room  in  my  coat  pocket.  The  next  is: 
"  Whenever  strikes  have  taken  place,  whenever  people 
"  have  been  driven  to  violence  by  the  oppression  of  their  "- 
then  there  is  something  that  is  unintelligible,  and  the  next  I 
have  is,"  "  then  the  police  " — then  there  is  three  or  four 
words  of  that  that  is  unintelligible,  then  there  were  cheers; 
"  but  I  want  to  tell  you,  gentlemen,  that  these  acts  of  vio- 
"  lence  are  the  natural  outcome  of  the  degradation  and 
"  the  oppression  of  which  working  people  are  subjected. 
"  I  was  addressing  a  meeting  of  ten  thousand  w^ge 
"  slaves  yesterday  afternoon,  in  the  neighborhood  of 
"  McCormick's;  they  didn't  want  me  to  speak.  The  most 
"of  them  were  good  church-going  people;  they  didn't 


212 

"  want  me  to  speak  because  I  was  a  socialist;  they  wanted 
"  to  tear  me  down  from  the  cars,  but  I  spoke  to  them 
"  and  told  them  they  must  stick  together."  Then  there 
is  some  more  that  is  unintelligible.  The  next  I  have, 
"  and  he  would  have  to  submit  to  them  if  they  would 
"  stick  together."  The  next  I  have  is,  "  they  were  not 
"  anarchists,  but  good,  church-going  people."  Then  the 
next,  "  the  capitalistic  press,"  what  he  said  I  can't  make 
out.  "  They  were  good  Christians."  Then  the  patrol 
wagon  came,  and  blood  was  shed.  Then  a  boy,  or 
some  one  in  the  crowd,  said,  "  shame  on  them,"  and  the 
next  thing  said  is,  "  throwing  stones  at  the  factory,  most 
"  harmless  sport."  Then  some  one  in  the  crowd 
—then  Spies  said,  "what  did  the  police  do?" 
and  some  one  in  the  crowd  said,  "murder  them;" 
then  he  went  on:  "They  only  came' to  the  meeting 
"  there  as  if  attending  church."  Then  there  is  some  more 
that  is  unintelligible.  The  next  I  have  is,  "  Such  things 
"  tell  you  of  the  agitation."  Then  there  is  something 
more  that  is  unintelligible.  The  next  I  have  is,  "  Couldn't 
"  help  themselves  any  more.  It  was  then  when  they  re- 
"  sorted  to  violence."  The  next  I  have  "  before  you 
"  starve  '• — no  connection  whatever,  and  the  next,  "  This 
"  fight  that  is  going  on  now  is  simply  a  struggle  for 
"  the  existence  of  the  oppressed  classes."  That  is  the 
last  that  I  can  get  out  at  this  time;  my  pocket  was  full 
of  paper;  it  was  all  rumpled  up,  and  I  thought  that  I 
had  got  to  the  end  of  this  note-book — that  is,  as  my 
pocket  got  fuller  and  fuller  of  paper,  my  notes  got  more 
unintelligible  because  I  didn't  have  room  enough  to  move 
my  hand  in,  and  the  notes  were  away  up  here  (show- 
ing), and  I  evidently  made  some  in  my  pocket.  Then 
I  moved  around  and  the  meeting  seemed  to  be  orderly, 


213 

and  I  took  another  position  in  the  face  of  the  speaker, 
and  I  took  out  my  paper  and  reported  openly  during 
the  rest  of  the  meeting  until  I  saw  the  police  coming, 
and  then  I  went  on  the  sidewalk. 

The  witness  then  said  that  he  had  read  all  the  original 
notes  which  he  had  left.  The  rest  of  his  testimony  was 
based  upon  the  account  which  he  had  written  for  the 
the  paper  and  which  was  published  in  that.  The  ac- 
count in  the  paper  did  not  contain  the  whole  of  the 
speeches  verbatim,  but  it  contained  the  incendiary  por- 
tions with  enough  of  the  remainder  to  show  the  connec- 
tion. 

"  It  is  said  that  I  inspired  the  attack  on  McCormick's. 
That  is  a  lie.  The  fight  is  going  on;  now  is  the  chance 
to  strike  for  the  existence  of  the  oppressed  classes.  The 
oppressors  want  us  to  be  content;  they  will  kill  us.  The 
thought  of  liberty  which  inspired  your  sires  to  fight  for 
their  freedom  ought  to  animate  you  to-day.  The  day  is 
not  far  distant  when  we  will  resort  to  hanging  these  men. 
(Applause,  and  cries  of  'hang  them  now!  ')  McCormick 
is  the  man  who  created  the  row  Monday,  and  he  must  be 
held  responsible  for  the  murder  of  our  brothers.  (Cries 
of  '  hang  him.')  Don't  make  any  threats;  they  are  of 
no  avail;  whenever  you  get  ready  to  do  something,  do  it 
and  don't  make  any  threats  beforehand.  There  are  in 
the  city  to-day  between  forty  and  fifty  thousand  men 
locked  out  because  they  refuse  to  obey  the  supreme  will 
or  dictation  of  a  small  number  of  men.  The  families  of 
25,000  or  30,000  men  are  starving  because  their  husbands 
and  fathers  are  not  men  enough  to  withstand  and  resist 
the  dictation  of  a  few  thieves  on  a  grand  scale  to  put  out 
of  the  power  of  a  few  men  to  say  whether  they  should 
work  or  not.  Would  they  place  their  lives,  their  happi- 
ness, everything  out  of  the  arbitrary  power  of  a  few  ras- 
cals? *  *  *  To  say  whether  you  shall  work  or  not, 
you  place  your  lives,  your  happiness,  everything  out  of 
the  arbitrary  power  of  a  few  rascals  who  have  been  raised 
in  idleness  and  luxury  upon  the  fruits  of  your  labor.  Will 


2I4 

you  stand  that?  (Cries  of  'no.')  The  press  say  we  are 
Bohemians,  Poles,  Russians,  Germans;  that  there  are  no 
Americans  among  us.  That  is  a  lie.  Every  honest  Ameri- 
can is  with  us.  Those  who  are  not  are  unworthy  of  their 
traditions  and  their  forefathers. 

"  Q.  That  is  all  that  you  have  got  of  Spies'  beside 
that  which  you  have  read? 

"  A.     That  is  all  of  Spies. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  more  of  Spies  that  wasn't  written 
out? 

"A.  Yes,  sir,  I  think  I  did;  Spies,  I  think,  spoke 
fifteen  or  twenty  minutes,  and  this  wouldn't  repre- 
sent more  than  five  or  six,  perhaps.  That  is,  in  actual 
talking. 

"  Well,  now  here  is  an  abstract  of  Parsons,  and  I  can't 
give  the  exact  language  when  he  first  started  off.  It  was 
about  the  workingmen,  that  the  remedy  for  their  wrongs 
was  in  socialism. 

"  Q.     Well,  now  tell  us  what  you  have  got  exact? 

"  A.  He  said,  without  them  they  would  soon  become 
Chinamen.  He  said,  '  It  is  time  to  raise  a  note  of  warn- 
ing. There  is  nothing  in  the  eight-hour  movement  to  ex- 
cite the  capitalist. 

" '  Don't  you  know  that  the  military  are  under  arms, 
and  a  Gatling  gun  is  ready  to  mow  you  down?  Was  this 
Germany  or  Russia  or  Spain?  (A  voice,  'It  looks  like 
it.')  '  Whenever  you  make  a  demand  for  eight  hours 
pay,  an  increase  of  pay,  the  militia  and  the  deputy 
sheriffs  and  the  Pinkerton  men  are  called  out  and  you  are 
shot  and  clubbed  and  murdered  in  the  streets.  I  am  not 
here  for  the  purpose  of  inciting  anybody,  but  to  speak  out 
to  tell  the  facts  as  they  exist,  even  though  it  shall  cost  me 
my  life  before  morning.'  Then  he  went  on  to  tell  about 
Cincinnati  demonstration  and  about  the  rifle-guard  being 
needed. 

"Q.     Is  that  all? 

"A.  No,  sir;  there  is  another  part  of  it  here.  'It 
behooves  you,  as  you  love  your  wife  and  children,  if  you 
don't  want  to  see  them  perish  with  hunger,  killed  or  cut 
down  like  dogs  on  the  street,  Americans,  in  the  interest 
of  your  liberty  and  your  independence,  to  arm,  arm  your- 
selves.' (Applause  and  cries  of  '  We  will  do  it.  We  are 


215 

ready  now.'  '  You  are  not.'  Then  the  rest  of  it  is  the 
wind-up.  *  He  talked  for  a  long  while  about,  out  of  every 
dollar  the  working-men  got  fifteen  cents  and  the  capitalists 
or  employers  got  eighty-five  cents.  And  he  said  he  was 
a  knight  of  labor  socialist,  and  a  member  of  the  Typo- 
graphical Union — oh,  I  don't  know,  he  talked  a  long 
while. 

"  Q.     Have  you  any  more  of  his  speeches? 

"  A.     No  more  of  his;  no,  sir. 

"  Q.     What  did  you  get  of  Fielden? 

"  A.  Well,  he  said — the  first  I  have  of  his  written 
out  was:  '  There  are  premonitions  of  danger.  All  knew. 
The  press  say  the  anarchists  will  sneak  away;  we  are 
not  going  to.  If  we  continue  to  be  robbed  it  will  not  be 
long  before  we  will  be  murdered.  There  is  no  security 
for  the  working  classes  under  the  present  social  system. 
A  few  individuals  control  the  means  of  living  and  holding 
the  workingmen  in  a  vise.  Everybody  does  not  know. 
Those  who  know  it  are  tired  of  it,  and  know  the  others 
will  get  tired  of  it,  too.  They  are  determined  to  end  it 
and  will  end  it,  and  there  is  no  power  in  the  land  that  will 
prevent  them.  Congressman  Foran  said:  "  The  laborer 
can  get  nothing  from  legislation."  He  also  said  that  the 
laborers  can  get  some  relief  from  their  present  condition 
when  the  rich  man  knew  it  was  unsafe  for  him  to  live  in 
a  community  where  there  were  dissatisfied  workingmen, 
for  they  would  solve  the  labor  problem.  '/ dorft  know 
-..'lictJicr  yon  are  democrats  or  republicans,  but  ^vhichever 
you  are,  you  worship  at  the  shrine  of  rebels.  John  Brown, 
Jefferson,  Washington,  Patrick  Henry  and  Hopkins  said 
to  the  people:  "  The  law  is  your  enemy.  We  are  rebels 
against  it.  The  Jaw  is  only  framed  for  those  thut  are  your 
enslavers.'1''  (A  voice:  '  That  is  true?}  Men  in  their 
blind  rage  attacked  McCormicks  factory  and  were  shot 
down  by  the  law  in  cold  blood  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  in  the 
protection  of  property.  Those  men  were  going  to  do 
some  damage  to  a  certain  person's  interest,  who  was  a 
large  property-owner,  therefore  the  law  came  to  his  de- 
fense. And  when  McCormick  undertook  to  do  some 
injury  to  the  interest  of  those  who  had  no  property,  the 
law  also  came  to  his  defense  and  not  to  the  workingman's 
defense  when  he,  Mr.  McCormick,  attacked  him  and  his 


2l6 

living.'  (Cries  of  'No.')  'There  is  the  difference. 
The  law  makes  no  distinctions.  A  million  men  own  all 
the  property  in  this  country.  The  law  has  no  use  for 
the  other  fifty-four  million.'  (A  voice,  '  Right  enough.') 
'  Ton  have  nothing  more  to  do  -with  the  law  except  to  lay 
hands  on  it  and  throttte  it  until  it  makes  its  last  kick.  It 
turns  your  brothers  out  on  the  -wayside  and  has  degraded 
them  until  they  have  lost  the  last  vestige  of  humanity^  and 
they  are  mere  things  and  animals.  Keep  your  eye  upon'  it. 
Throttle  it.  Kill  it.  Stab  it.  Do  everything  you  can  to 
wound  it — to  impede  its  progress.  Remember,  before  trust- 
ing them  to  do  anything  for  yourself,  prepare  to  do  it  for 
yourself.  Dorft  turn  over  your  business  to  anybody  else. 
JVb  man  deserves  anything  unless  he  is  man  enough  to  make 
an  effort  to  lift  himself  from  oppression?  Then  there 
was  an  interruption  on  account  of  the  storm. 

"  Q.     Anything  said  at  that  time? 

"A.     Yes,  sir;  Mrs.  Parsons  suggested  that  they  ad- 
journ over  to  Zepf's  Hall. 

"  Q.     Did  Fielden  say  anything? 

"A.  Fielden  said:  '  No,  the  people  were  trying  to 
get  information,  and  he  would  go  on,  he  would  finish  what 
there  was  then.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  we  have  no  choice 
as  to  our  existence,  for  we  can't  dictate  what  our  labor  is 
worth?  He  that  has  to  obey  the  will  of  any  is  a  slave. 
Can  -we  do  anything  except  by  the  strong  arm  of  resist- 
ance? Socialists  are  not  going  to  declare  war;  but  I  tell 
you  war  has  been  declared  upon  us,  and  1  ask  you  to  get 
hold  of  anything  that  will  help  to  resist  the  onslaught 
of  the  enemy,  and  the  usurper.  The  skirmish  lines  have 
met.  People  have  been  shot.  Men,  women  and  children 
have  not  been  spared  by  the  capitalists  and  •minions  of  pri- 
vate capital.  It  had  no  me  rev,  so  ought  you.  You  are 
called  upon  to  defend  yourselves,  your  lives,  your  future. 
What  matters  it  whether  you  kill  yourselves  with  work  to 
get  a  little  relief,  or  die  on  the  battle-field  resisting  the 
enemy?  What  is  f/ic  difference?  Any  aniinal,  however 
loathsome,  will  resist  when  stepped  upon.  Are  men  less 
than  snails  or  worms?  1  have  some  resistance  in  me.  1 
know  that  you  have,  too.  You  have  been  robbed  and  von  will 
be  starved  info  a  worse  condition.''  That  is  all  I  have.  At 
that  time  some  one  alongside  of  me  asked  me  if  the  police 


217 

were  not  coming.  I  was  facing  this  way  (showing). 
Fielden  was  over  there  (showing),  and  that  was  down 
Desplaines  street  (showing).  I  looked  down  the  street 
and  I  saw  a  file  of  police  about  the  middle  of  Randolph 
street.  As  soon  as  I  saw  the  police  I  put  my  paper  in 
my  pocket  and  ran  right  over  on  the  south-west  corner." 

WILLIAM  H.  FREEMAN  (K,  37),  a  reporter  who 
was  present  at  the  meeting,  says  of  Fielden's  speech: 

"  He  discussed  the  legislation  and  Congress.  He  spoke 
particularly  of  the  action  of  Martin  Foran.  He  declared 
that  Foran  had  stated  that  no  legislation  could  be  enacted 
that  would  benefit  the  workingman,and  from  that  went  on  to 
argue  that  it  was  clear  that  it  was  impossible  for  the 
workingman  to  obtain  any  sort  of  redress  through  legis- 
lation. He  told  them  they  ought  not  to  be  fools  enough 
to  send  such  men  as  Martin  Foran  to  Congress  and  legis- 
late for  them  when  they  admitted  that  there  was  no  pos- 
sibility of  doing  anything  that  would  redound  to  the  benefit 
of  the  workingman.  He  also  spoke,  I  think,  of  the  rev- 
olution in  this  country,  the  original  revolution  which  es- 
stablished  the  government,  and  compared  the  revolution 
proposed  by  the  vvorkingmen,  as  he  styled  them,  to  that 
revolution.  He  asserted  that  it  was  equally  as  proper  as 
the  original  revolution.  Then  he  spoke,  I  remember  par- 
ticularly, just  before  the  arrival  of  the  police,  with  reference 
to  the  law.  He  spoke  of  the  law  and  of  all  the  the  acts 
of  capital,  as  he  styled  it,  I  believe,  and  the  oppressive 
acts  of  capital  which  injured  the  workingmen  as  being 
the  result  of  the  law,  and  urged  the  workingmen  and  his 
hearers  to  overthrow  the  law,  to  subvert  it,  to  kill  it,  to 
stab  it  and  to  throttle  it,  as  I  remember  it.  Those  are 
about  the  last  words  that  I  remember  to  have  heard  him 
speak  before  the  arrival  of  the  police." 


(B.)     THE  BOMB. 

When  Fielden  called  on  the  crowd  to  kill  the  law,  to 
stab  it,  to  throttle  it,  or  it  would  throttle  them,  and  the 
crowd  around  the  wagon  became  excited,  Officer  Me- 


2l8 

Keough  went  over  to  the  station  and  reported  to  In- 
spector Bonfield,  and  while  Fielden  was  still  speaking,  the 
police  left  the  Desplaines  street  station,  which  was  situated 
on  the  west  side  of  Desplaines  street  about  half  a  block 
south  of  Randolph  street,  and  marched  north  towards  the 
crowd.  They  numbered  about  one  hundred  and  eighty; 
they  marched  in  four  columns,  extending  from  curb  to 
curb  across  the  street.  A  few  feet  in  advance  of  the 
front  column  were  Inspector  Bonfield  and  Capt.  Ward. 
When  the  front  column  reached  Crane's  alley,  Fielden 
still  speaking;  they  halted,  and  Capt.  Ward  ordered 
the  crowd  "  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  the  State  of 
"Illinois  quietly  and  peaceably  to  disperse,"  whereupon 
Fielden  replied,  "  We  are  peaceable."Just  at  that  moment 
the  bomb  was  thrown.  The  explosion  of  the  bomb  killed 
and  wounded  sixty-six  of  the  officers.  A  nut  from  the 
bomb  wounded  and  was  afterwards  taken  from  the  body 
of  one  of  the  bystanders.  Instantly  upon  the  explosion  of 
the  bomb  and,  before  the  police  force  had  an  opportunity 
to  rally,  a  fusilade  of  revolver  shots  was  fired  into  the 
police  from  both  sides  of  the  street. 

The  effects  of  the  bomb  and  its  composition  are  of 
great  significance.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Spies 
said  to  Wilkinson  in  his  interview  that  i hey  had  discovered 
that  bombs  of  composite  manufacture  were  best.  The  bomb 
exploded  was  of  a  composite  mamtfacture.  Expert  chem- 
ists who  analyzed  it  testified  that  it  could  not  have  been 
made  of  any  one  material  known  to  commerce,  but  must 
have  been  made  of  a  composition  of  metals.  And  the 
evidence  shows  that  its  composition  was  almost  identical 
with  the  composition  of  the  bombs  made  by  Lingg  at  the 
house  of  Seliger  and  with  the  composition  of  the  Czar 
bomb  obtained  by  Wilkinson  from  Spies.  Moreover,  the 


evidence  shows  that  all  of  the  ingredients  of  which  the 
bomb  was  composed  were  found  in  Lingg's  trunk,  and 
the  nut,  which  was  extracted  from  the  body  of  the 
wounded  bystander,  was  identical  in  appearance  and  size 
with  the  nuts  used  by  Lingg  in  the  manufacture  of  his 
bombs. 

When  the  evidence  upon  this  branch  of  the  case  is  con- 
sidered there  can  be  no  question  in  the  mind  of  any 
reasonable  man  that  the'bomb  exploded  at  the  Haymarket 
was  manufactured  by  the  defendant  Lingg. 

That  composite  bombs  are  best  is  shown  by  the  J act  that 
this  one  bomb  killed  and  wounded  sixty-six  officers, 
some  of  whom  were  covered  with  wounds  from  head  to 
foot. 


(C.)     THE  EFFECT  OF  THE  BOMB. 

Dr.  JOHN  B.  MURPHY,  surgeon  of  the  Cook  County 
Hospital,  testified  (K,  465),  that  he  arrived  at  the  Des- 
plaines  street  station  about  n  o'clock  at  night;  was 
there  until  half-past  3,  examined  many  of  the  wounded 
and  injured  officers,  and  afterwards  others  at  the  hos- 
pital. 

"  I  went  to  the  station.  The  first  man  I  saw  lying  on 
the  floor,  about  six  feet  from  the  door,  was  Officer  Shan- 
non; there  was  a  person  with  him  then,  so  I  passed  an- 
went  on  to  another  man  lying  a  few  feet  from  him  on  the 
floor.  I  looked  at  some  of  his  wounds  and  saw  they 
were  not  dangerous,  and  passed  from  one  officer  to  and 
other.  Think  I  saw  ten  on  the  first  floor  of  that  station, 
just  inside  the  door;  Shannon  was  the  worst.  From 
there  I  went  upstairs,  and  Capt.  Murphy,  of  the  fire  de- 
partment, assisted  me,  helped  me  cut  the  dressings  for 
the  officers  upstairs.  The  first  one  I  dressed  upstairs 
was  Barrett.  He  was  complaining  most.  He  was  cry- 


22O 

ing  very  severely.  After  dressing  Barrett,  who  I  found 
had  a  very  large  wound  in  the  side,  large  enough  to 
admit  two  ringers  right  into  his  liver,  and  he  was  bleed- 
ing severely  from  the  wound,  and  the  blood  rushed  out 
on  removing  the  clot.  I  found  I  could  put  my  finger  in, 
and  felt  his  liver  moving  up  and  down.  I  could 
not  reach  the  piece  of  shell  that  caused  the 
injury.  It  was  a  lacerated  wound,  not  made  with  a 
bullet,  because  it  was  much  larger  than  that 
which  could  be  made  by  a  bullet,  that  is  an 
ordinary  pistol  bullet.  I  tamponed  the  liver  with 
gauze  to  prevent  him  bleeding  to  death  at  the 
station,  and  I  went  on  to  the  next  man  in  that  way  until  I 
dressed,  in  all,  between  twenty-six  and  thirty  .at  the  sta- 
tion. After  completing  our  work  there  at  the  station  I 
had  a  conversation  with  Capt.  Ward,  in  which  be  asked 
me  about  the  hospital,  and  I  said  to  have  the  men  sent  to 
the  hospital,  as  they  could  not  be  taken  care  of  so  well  at 
home.  So,  after,  when  we  got  through  with  the  dressings 
at  3  o'clock,  Dr.  Lee  remained  at  the  station  to  take  care 
of  my  patients,  while  I  went  to  the  hospital  to  take  care 
of  the  portion  of  them  that  would  then  be  sent.  I  told 
him  to  send  us  those  that  were  injured  most  severely  at 
first.  Those  were  Officers  Miller,  Whitney,  Keller,  Bar- 
rett, Flavin  and  Reddin.  Jake  Hanson  was  in  a  separate 
room  from  the  others,  said  he  was  pretty  much  shocked. 
He  was  pulseless  at  the  time  I  first  saw  him,  and  he  was 
given  large  doses  of  whisky,  and  some  morphine  to 
stimulate  him  sufficiently  to  get  him  to  the  hospital.  It 
looked  as  though  he  would  die  at  the  station.  Charles 
Fink,  No.  154  Sangamon  street,  had  three  shell  wounds 
in  the  legs.  The  missile  which  caused  the  wound  in  the 
calf  of  the  leg  passed  in  about  three  inches,  and  lay  under 
the  skin  on  the  opposite  side.  It  passed  in  from  the  left 
to  the  right,  and  lay  under  the  skin  on  this  side. 
I  cut  in  here  and  opened  it  and  put  in  a 
drainage  tube.  The  peculiarity  of  the  shell  wounds 
in  this  case  is  that  they  make  but  a  small  opening  as  a 
as  a  rule  on  the  outside,  but  inside  they  tear  the  soft  parts 
terribly.  In  the  case  of  a  wound  that  would  not  more 
than  admit  a  lead  pencil  on  the  outside,  after  the  skin  was 
open,  you  would  find  an  opening  on  the  inside  in 


221 

which  you  could  move  your  finger  around  very  readily 
all  through  the  wound.  Fink  had  in  all  three  wounds. 
The  next  is  A.  C.  Keller.  He  was  struck  by  a  piece  of 
shell  on  the  left  side,  hitting  his  eighth  rib.  It  passed 
directly  into  the  eighth  rib.  It  struck  the  rib,  which 
glanced  it  off,  and  it  shot  under  the  skin  six  inches  at  an 
angle  of  twenty  degrees,  about  six  inches,  and  lodged 
just  over  the  heart  on  the  left  side.  In  opening  that,  I 
first  opened  the  skin  and  dressed  the  wound.  I  supposed 
it  had  entered  the  chest,  because  he  was  very  much 
shocked  and  frightened.  After  opening  the  wound  I  made 
a  test  at  the  point  it  struck  the  rib,  and  found  it  did  not 
enter,  and  then  I  dressed  it  up  by  making  an  opening  in 
all  of  seven  inches  and  a  half,  an  incision  to  find  where 
the  shell  was.  It  was  important  in  shell  wounds,  different 
from  wounds  with  a  bullet,  to  get  out  the  shell — it  was 
very  important.  It  is  important  because  the  shells  take 
in  large  pieces  of  cloth  and  other  material,  and  this  is  very 
dangerous  because  it  favors  blood  poisoning  much  more 
than  bullet  wounds. 

"  The  next  is  Joseph  Norman,  612  Walnut  street.  The 
shell  perforated  the  foot,  and  he  had  one  fractured  finger, 
taking  off  a  portion  of  his  finger  between  the  first  and 
second  joints. 

"  I  saw  Officer  Michael  Sheehan,  of  162  Barber  street, 
the  following  morning  at  about  n  o'clock  and  examined 
him.  He  had  a  wound  in  his  back  just  below  the  ninth 
rib.  It  passed  in  and  passed  forward,  and  the  bullet  lay 
midway  between  the  umbilicus  and  the  cartilage  here  in 
the  abdomen.  That  was  a  bullet  wound.  I  didn't  know 
it  was  a  bullet  wound  until  I  cut  down  and  found  the 
bullet.  Then  he  was  very  much  distended.  His  abdo- 
men was  bloody.  He  was  collapsed  and  complaining  of 
pain.  On  opening  the  wound  I  found  it  passed  clear 
through  him.  I  enlarged  the  opening  and  let  out  about 
two. quarts  of  blood  from  the  abdomen  and  put  in  a  large 
drainage  tube  to  allow  this  blood  to  escape  from  the  ab- 
domen, to  go  out  through  the  drainage  tube.  He  con- 
tinued to  suffer  from  pain,  and  his  distension  got  greater 
and  greater.  He  got  peritonitis  and  died,  I  think,  on  the 
seventh  day  of  peritonitis.  I  would  say  that  I  was  at  the 
autopsy,  and  found  that  the  ball  passed  through  the  upper 


222 

portion  of  the  kidney  and  through  the  stomach,  through 
the  bowel  and  out  through  the  wall  of  the  abdomen. 

"  Officer  Arthur  Connelly,  318  Huron  street.  I  dressed 
this  man  at  the  station.  He  had  a  compound  fracture 
of  the  fibula.  The  shell  struck  him  about  two  inches  be- 
low the  knee,  tore  away  a  piece  of  bone  of  the  fibula, 
and  perforated  the  tibia,  and  lodged  in  or  about  the  mid- 
dle of  the  large  bone  of  the  leg,  a  short  distance  below 
the  knee.  At  the  operation  we  enlarged  the  opening  and 
took  out  the  pieces  of  injured  bone  and  a  piece  of  shell, 
which  was  left  at  his  house.  That  man  is  now  able  to  be 
around,  but  is  quite  lame.  There  is  a  hole  yet  down  in 
that  bone,  because  that  takes  a  considerable  time  to  fill. 
He  had,  beside  this  wound,  which  was  his  most  severe 
one — he  had  several  others — I  don't  know  how  many — all 
shell  wounds. 

"  Officer  Lawrence  Murphy,  of  Desplaines  street  sta- 
tion, 317^  Fulton  street,  residence.  He  had  in  all,  I  think, 
fifteen  wounds,  all  shell  wounds.  One  was  here  in  the 
neck,  entering  a  little  to  the  left  of  the  trachea,  and  pass- 
ing in,  lodged  in  one  of  the  muscles  here,  just  at  the  base 
of  the  skull.  It  passed  right  by  the  carotid  artery.  I 
could  see  it  pulsate.  Then  there  were  three  or  four 
wounds  in  the  arms.  In  his  left  foot  the  shell  struck 
right  at  about  that  point,  cut  the  foot,  the  right,  off  here 
(indicating).  And  then,  when  it  struck  the  bone  of  the 
great  toe,  it  was  slanted  down  and  the  shell  lodged  at  the 
base  of  the  great  toe,  just  back  of  the  base  of  the  great 
toe,  and  left  his  foot  hanging  by  a  piece  of  skin.  This 
piece  of  shell  weighed  about  an  ounce  and  a  half.  It  was 
still  there,  and  this  is  a  piece  of  shell,  which  I  divided  and 
gave  a  part  to  Prof.  Patton  and  two  portions  of  it  to  Prof. 
Walter  F.  Haynes,  of  Rush  Medical  College.  The  foot 
had  to  be  amputated  about  two  inches  further  back  from 
where  the  injury  was.  He  had  a  piece  two  inches  square 
taken  out  of  the  anterior  surface  of  his  leg.  He  had  two 
perforating  wounds  in  the  left  thigh  and  a  number  in  the 
right — I  have  forgotten  how  many  in  the  right  thigh. 

"  Officer  Ed  Barrett,  Lake  street  station,  residence 
Ohio  street.  He  has  two  shell  wounds  in  the  leg,  both 
in  the  neighborhood  t)f  the  knee-joint,  turning  out  large 
pieces  of  flesh,  and  leaving  ragged  wounds  on  the  sur- 
face. 


223 

"  Officer  J.  H.  King,  of  Desplaines  street  station,  was 
struck  by  a  piece  of  shell  in  the  chin.  It  passed  up  and 
went  through  his  upper  iip.  Another  piece  took  away 
about  an  inch  of  his  lower  jaw  bone — carried  it  com- 
pletely away,  so  that  his  face  is  very  much  turned  to  one 
side,  and  his  bone  is  short.  He  ha'd  one  other  slight 
wound  besides  that;  it  looked  like  a  shell  wound.  The 
missile  was  not  there. 

"  Officer  J.  El.  Brady,  of  Desplaines  street,  had  several 
flesh  wounds  in  the  legs,  both  in  the  thigh  and  legs. 
How  many  I  don't  remember;  there  were  some  pieces 
of  shell  taken  out  of  them.  Whether  they  were  all  shell 
wounds  or  not  I  don't  know.  Except  in  those  wounds 
where  we  found  the  shell  absolutely  there,  we  did  not 
call  them  shell  wounds,  because  it  was  not  positive. 

"  Tim  Flavin  was  struck  with  a  piece  of  shell  four 
inches  above  the  ankle-joint,  tearing  away  a  portion  of 
the  large  bone,  and  fracturing  the  small  bone,  tearing  all 
the  soft  parts  but  a  few  pieces  of  skin,  and  leaving  his 
leg  hanging.  He  had  two  wounds  just  below  the 
shoulder-joint  in  the  right  arm,  cutting  the  artery  so  that 
it  had  to  be  ligated.  He  had  two  wounds  in  the  back, 
both  of  which  passed  into  the — one  into  the  abdomen 
and  one  into  the  lung,  because  there  was  a  rattling  in 
the  lung  at  the  time,  which  indicated  that  it  had  been  in- 
jured by  the  shell.  Those  were  shell  wounds.  He  had 
an  amputation.  He  had  to  be  amputated  the  second  day 
afterwards,  about  three  inches  above  the  knee.  There 
was  a  ligation  of  his  brachial  artery  and  a  drainage  of 
the  wounds  in  the  back.  He  had,  besides,  large  pieces 
torn  out  of  his  right  hip.  He  died  on  the  fourth  day,  I 
think — fourth  or  fifth.  I  am  not  positive  of  the  day. 

"  Officer  Jacob  Hansen,  Desplaines  street  station,  resi- 
dence 137  South  Morgan  street.  I  saw  him  first  in  his 
separate  room  at  the  station.  He  was  very  much  col- 
lapsed. He  had  a  shell  wound  in  the  right  thigh  about 
two  inches  and  a  half  long,  tearing  the  thigh  open.  It 
passed  through  and  cut  the  vein.  It  tore  that  for  about 
an  equal  distance,  and  a  shell-wound  fracture  of  the  tibin 
of  the  opposite  side,  passing  through  the  bone  of  the 
tibia  and  striking  the  fibula  in  the  opposite  side,  that  is,  in 
the  left  leg,  entering  from  the  left.  The  wound  was  laid 


224 

open,  the  shell  was  removed  and  the  vein  ligated.  The 
vessel  was  tied  to  prevent  him  from  bleeding.  The  sec- 
ond day  after,  it  was  evident  that  he  would  lose  his  leg. 
He  was  told  of  the  fact.  On  the  third  day  it  was  black 
to  about  three  inches  below  the  knee.  On  the  fourth  day 
it  was  amputated  about  six  inches  below  the  hip.  He 
had,  besides  that,  a  large  wound,  three  inches  deep,  at  the 
right  hip-joint,  a  little  above,  and  another  one  in  the  an- 
terior surface  of  the  right  thigh.  At  the  end  of  three 
weeks  his  blood-vessel  burst,  and  we  amputated  more, 
had  to  be  laid  open.  Again  he  bled  very  profusely.  He 
was  pulseless  at  the  time  I  saw  him.  He  was  in  care  of 
an  attendant,  but  he  had  lost  so  much  blood  before  they 
could  control  it  that  more  had  to  be  laid  open  again  and 
the  vessel  ligated.  Two  weeks  later  it  burst  again.  It 
was  ligated;  the  vessel  was  tied  two  inches  higher.  His 
pulse  at  that  time  was  180  during  the  operation,  and  arti- 
ficial respiration  had  to  be  kept  up  to  keep  him  alive  on 
the  table.  About  two  weeks  later  he  got  another  hem- 
orrhage. Then  he  was  very  much  exhausted,  and  we 
could  not  give  him  ether,  as  he  was  pulseless;  and  I  had 
to  tie  the  vessel  in  the  wound  and  hold  it  with  the 
forceps  all  night  to  keep  him  from  bleeding,  and  tried  to 
keep  him  alive  while  we  gave  him  whisky  and  kept  up 
his  respirations.  The  following  morning  he  was  some- 
what better.  There  was  a  doctor  stayed  by  his  side  with 
me  for  the  four  days  following.  At  the  end  of  the  fourth 
day  I  made  an  incision  into  his  abdomen,  and  ligated  his 
external  illiac. 

"Q.     What  is  that? 

"  A.  It  is  a  large  vessel  that  leads  from  the  main 
trunk  down.  It  divides  into  two  branches,  the  external 
and  internal.  The  external  illiac  is  the  vessel  that  goes 
into  the  thigh,  and  after  it  passed  a  certain  ligament  com- 
menced to  burst  the  ligament,  which  is  frequently  the 
case.  These  blood  vessels  kept  bursting  from  time  to 
time,  so  they  had  to  be  tied  higher  and  higher  until  I  got 
to  the  external  illiac,  which  was  ligated  on  the  2pth  of  last 
June.  Since  that  he  has  gradually  improved  until  now 
he  is  able  to  sit  up  a  little. 

"  Officer  John  Doyle,  of  Desplaines  street  station,  had 
several  wounds  about  the  legs.  How  many  I  don't  re- 
member. 


225 

"  Officer  John  Barrett  was  taken  at  my  direction  from 
the  station  to  the  hospital.  I  saw  him  the  first 
patient  after  I  arrived  at  the  hospital — the  first  one 
that  I  paid  attention  to.  He  had  a  large  hole  in 
his  liver.  I  removed  the  gauze  that  I  put  in  at  the  station 
to  see  if  I  could  do  anything  more  to  stop  the  hemorrhage, 
as  I  thought  it  was  dangerous  to  leave  the  gauze  there.  I 
found  a  piece  of  shell  in  his  liver,  which  I  removed,  and 
I  tamponed  the  liver  again.  Besides  that  he  had  a  com- 
pound comminuted  fracture  of  his  elbow-joint — that  is,  a 
piece  of  his  elbow-joint  was  entirely  torn  awav.  The  in- 
ternal condile  was  torn  away  by  the  shell,  leaving  the 
elbow  joint  open.  The  heel  bone — I  have  forgotten 
whether  it  was  the  left  or  right — for  about  two  inches 
was  carried  right  off,  torn  right  off,  and  left  a  piece  or 
flap  of  the  skin  in  its  place.  He  was  semi-unconscious 
from  the  time  he  entered  the  hospital.  He  was  constantly 
moaning.  He  became  bloody  on  the  next  day,  very 
much  pulseless  and  collapsed,  and  died  on  the  6th. 

"  Officer  Michael  O'Brien,  No.  495  5th  avenue.  I  saw 
him  at  the  Ptation  shortly  after  entering.  He  was  stand- 
ing up  leaning  against  the  wall.  He  said:  'I  am  shot  in 
the  leg;  won't  you  dress  me  first?'  Afterwards  I  looked 
at  the  openings,  and  he  said  himself  that  they  were  not  so 
severe;  but,  on  having  him  removed  to  his  house  and  ex- 
amined him  there,  I  found  that  one  of  them  passed  almost 
entirely  through  his  thigh.  I  found  it  a  little  under  the 
skin  on  the  opposite  side.  It  looked  like  a  small  wound, 
as  the  majority  of  those  shell  wounds  did,  on  the  outside, 
but  inside  it  made  a  large  opening  in  the  thigh  where  I 
could  put  my  finger  in;  a  shell  wound. 

"  Officer  Nicholas  Shannon.  I  counted,  in  all,  on  him 
eighteen  wounds.  They  were  principally  in  his  side  and 
back,  and  a  number  of  wounds  were  in  his  neck;  none  in 
his  face;  and  they  ranged  all  the  way  from  his  neck  to  his 
heels.  There  were  two  at  his  ankle-joint  of  his  left  foot. 
We  had  him  under  ether  two  hours  and  a  half  to  take 
out  the  pieces  of  shell  from  the  different  parts  of  his  body. 
My  recollection  of  it  is  that  we  took  out,  in  all,  nine  pieces 
of  shell.  He  had  eighteen  wounds,  and  we  took  out  nine 
pieces  of  shell.  He  is  still  confined  to  bed,  and  recently, 
within  the  last  week,  I  assisted  Dr.'  Lee  in  removing  a 


226 

portion  of  the  bone  of  the  leg  where  it  was  broken  loose 
with  the  shell— that  is,  of  the  tibia,  and  also  a  portion  of 
the  fibula. 

"  Mr.  GRINNELL:     Q.     Where  were  those  wounds? 

"A.  I  think  they  were  all  the  way  from  his  neck  to 
his  heels. 

"Q.     What  is  his  present  condition? 

"A.  His  present  condition  is,  he  is  confined  to  bed.  I 
think  he  will  recover. 

"  Q.     He  had  an  amputation? 

"A.  No,  sir:  not  an  amputation.  We  put  in  a  large 
number  of  drainage  lubes,  and  he  did  not  require  an  am- 
putation. We  drained  every  wound — eighteen  drainage 
tubes.  We  took  out  about  nine  pieces  of  shell — I  think 
that  is  my  recollection  of  it.  We  counted  nine  pieces. 

"  Peter  Butterly,  Lake  street  station.  There  was  a 
wound  in  his  arm  three  inches  long.  Some  one  took  the 
shell  out  at  the  station  before  I  saw  him.  The  other 
wounds  were  in  his  legs.  There  was  one  at  the  anterior 
surface  of  the  leg,  carrying  away  probably  an  inch  square 
out  of  the  anterior  portion  of  his  leg.  There  were  two 
perforating  wounds,  which  went  almost  through  the  leg, 
which  had  drainage  tubes,  and  there  was  a  large  burn,  in 
which  it  did  not  tear  the  ftesh  away,  but  the  shell  burned 
a  large  surface,  probably  two  inches  long  and  an  inch 
across. 

"  Officer  Terrell,  228  South  Lincoln  street.  I  saw  him 
the  foHowing,day,  and  he  had  a  shell  wound  in  the  right 
thigh  or  leg,  I  have  forgotten  which. 

"  Officer  Thomas  Reddin.  I  saw  him  first  at  the  sta- 
tion. I  found  out  that  he  had  a  very  bad  fracture  of  the 
leg  three  inches  below  the  knee,  in  which  a  large  portion 
of  the  bone  was  entirely  carried  away.  He  had,  besides 
that,  several  wounds  below  that  in  the  leg,  and  in  the  op- 
posite leg,  in  the  other  leg,  in  his  right  leg,  and  a  com- 
pound wound,  that  is,  a  wound  opening  the  joint  of  the 
right  elbow.  He  was  taken  to  the  hospital.  He  was 
put  on  the  table  and  examined,  and  it  was  concluded  to 
try  and  save  his  leg,  although  a  large  portion  of  the  bone 
was  carried  away.  It  was  drained.  The  drainage  tubes 
were  also  put  in  some  wounds  he  had  in  his  back  and  in 
his  elbow-joint.  He  went  on  until,  I  think,  it  was  ten 


227 

days  or  two  weeks.  He  died  on  the  i6th,  the  night  of 
the  i6th. 

"  Q.     From  shell  wounds? 

"  A.  We  found  a  piece  of  shell  at  the  entry  in  the  leg, 
also  at  the  elbow. 

"  Patrick  Hartford,  Desplaines  street  station.  A  piece 
of  shell  passed  into  his  ankle-joint,  laying  the  joint  open, 
and  it  was  removed,  and  a  drainage  tube  put  into  the 
ankle-joint — it  was  the  right  ankle-joint.  A  portion  of 
his  left  foot  was  carried  way  from  the  base  of  the  great 
toe,  carrying  off  the  two  toes.  The  missile  was  not  there 
in  this  case.  It  cut  them,  and  allowed  them  to  hang,  and 
passed  out.  It  was  not  found.  It  was  not  even  found  in 
his  shoe.  The  ankle-joint  was  drained;  and  it  is  a  short 
time  since  he  left  the  hospital.  He  will  recover. 

"  Charles  E.  Whitney.  A  piece  of  shell  struck  him  a 
little  to  the  left  of  the  median  line  between  the  second 
and  third  ribs  just  at  the  base,  just  over  the  base  of  his 
heart.  It  passed  in  a  direction  from  the  left  to  right, 
passing  behind,  tearing  off  a  piece  of  the  breast-bone, 
and  passing  in  behind  the  breast-bone.  In  probing  the 
wound  the  base  of  the  heart,  that  is  the  vessel  at  the 
base  of  his  heart,  could  be  distinctly  felt  beating  against 
the  finger.  It  was  on  the  night  of  the  injury,  or  the 
morning  after,  that  I  first  dressed  him  and  put  in  the 
drainage  tubes.  I  did  not  find  the  shell,  but  a  week  after 
a  piece  of  shell  with  a  large  piece  of  cloih  came  out  of 
the  wound.  It  is  draining  yet,  and  he  is  now  in  a  some- 
what critical  condition  from  the  injury  done  to  the  vessels  at 
the  base  of  his  heart.  He  is  having  at  present  symptoms 
of  the  development  of  aneurism. 

"  Q.     That  is  heart  disease  ? 

"  A.  No,  sir,  it  is  a  disease  of  the  vessels.  Aneurism 
is  where  the  wall  of  a  vessel  is  weakened  either  from 
disease  or  from  injury,  and  gradually  dilates.  After  it  is 
dilated  to  a  certain  extent  it  bursts,  just  the  same  as  a 
hose  does.  At  present  he  has  the  symptoms  of  a  devel- 
oping aneurism,  and  at  whatever  time  that  should  burst 
it  would  kill  him,  if  it  goes  on  to  that  extent.  He  is  at 
present  under  treatment.  There  is  a  drainage  tube  in 
there  about  an  inch  and  a  half  in  length. 

"  Officer   Bernard   Murphy  had   a   large  wound  in  his 


228 

forehead.  The  shell  struck  him  there  at  an  angle,  struck 
the  bone,  passed  through  and  came  out  here  (indicating). 
It  was  a  lacerated  wound.  For  that  reason  I  call  it  a 
shell  wound,  in  which  I  put  a  drainage  tube.  He  also  had 
three,  I  believe,  wounds  in  his  thigh.  He  is  now  about. 

"  Officer  McNulty,  who  is  yet  in  a  critical  condition,  is 
at  the  hospital.  I  saw  him  the  morning  after.  I  saw  him 
at  the  station  first,  and  saw  him  the  morning  after  at  the 
hospital  and  examined  his  wounds.  Both  of  the  pieces  of 
shell  passed  into  the  popliteal  space,  right  in  proximity  to 
the  large  popliteal  vessel  that  is  there.  One  passed  into 
the  knee-joint,  and  on  the  fourth  day  his  knee-joint  became 
very  much  swollen.  It  filled  with  matter,  so  we  had  to 
open  up  the  knee-joint  to  let  the  matter  out  and  put  in,  in 
all,  seven  drainage  tubes  through  his  knee-joint.  He  had 
a  hemorrhage  on  the  evening  of  the  4th,  a  very  profuse 
hemorrhage,  and  was  collapsed.  The  next  day  he  rallied 
a  little.  He  got  delirious,  and  was  wildly  delirious  for 
three  weeks  from  the  shock.  He  got  so  frightened  at  the 
hemorrhage  that  he  was  delirious  from  that  moment.  He 
was  perfectly  rational  before,  a  little  nervous;  but  from 
the  moment  he  began  to  bleed  he  got  delirious.  He  is 
now  just  able  to  sit  up,  at  the  hospital.  He  has  been  in  a 
very  critical  condition  for  the  greater  part  of  the  time. 

"  Q.     What  is  his  given  name? 

"  A.     I  have  not  got  it. 

"  Officer  Smith  got  a  shell  wound.  The  shell  struck 
him  at  the  tip  of  the  right  collar-bone,  passed  along  the 
collar-bone  and  lodged  here  at  the  base  of  the  neck.  It 
was  removed  from  there  at  the  hospital. 

"  Lieut.  Stanton  I  saw  first  at  the  hospital.  He  was 
taken  directly  to  the  hospital.  He  received  one  wound 
on  the  right  side  of  the  chest,  passing  into  the  rib,  and 
then  passing  off  to  the  backwards  instead  of  forwards. 
Whether  it  entered  the  chest  or  not  I  don't  know.  We 
didn't  find  the  missile  in  this  case.  He  had  besides  three 
wounds  in  his  leg,  two  perforating  and  one  smaller  one 
passing  downwards,  in  which  we  put  three  drainage 
tubes.  He  had  another  one  higher  up  in  the  leg  in  the 
front,  carrying  away  a  large  portion  of  the  skin.  He  had 
another  in  the  forearm  and  still  another  in  the  arm  about 
three  inches  below  the  shoulder. 


229 

"  Michael  Horn  had  two  bullet  wounds  in  the  thigh. 

"  McCormick,  474  Erie  street,  had  one  perforating 
wound  of  the  arm,  small. 

"  Officer  Miller,  one  of  those  injured  most  severely, 
and  complaining  most  at  the  station,  was  shot  in  the  left 
side  just  below  the  axilla;  the  ball  passed  down  through 
the  body,  a  bullet,  and  lodged  in  his  right  side  just  above 
the  hip-bone.  He  was  very  low  when  I  saw  him.  He 
asked  me  if  he  could  live.  I  told  him  I  didn't  know.  He 
wanted  me  to  send  for  his  folks*  I  told  him  about  an 
operation.  He  said,  '  I  will  die  anyway.'  I  told  him  I 
thought  he  would,  so  he  didn't  consent  to  an  operation, 
and  I  didn't  urge  him,  because  I  didn't  consider  it  favor- 
able. He  suffered  probably  more  than  any  man 
from  pain  for  a  short  period  of  time.  His  agony  was  ter- 
rible. The  perforation  of  the  chest  allowed  the  air  to 
enter  in  so  that  his  right  lung  collapsed.  He  had  only 
one  lung  to  breathe  with.  It  made  his  breathing  very 
difficult,  and  his  bowels,  being  torn  by  the  ball,  distended 
his  abdomen  so  that  he  could  not  breathe  with  his  dia- 
phragm. His  suffering  was  terrible;  the  most  of  any 
man  that  was  wounded  for  the  time.  The  ball  was  taken 
out  here,  just  above  the  hip-bone.  There  was  no  dram- 
age  of  the  peritoneal  cavity. 

"  Officer  Simon  McMahone  had,  I  believe,  three 
wounds  of  the  legs.  Two  pieces  of  shell  were  removed 
from  him  at  the  hospital. 

"  Officer  Weinecke  was  struck  in  the  neck  by  a 
missile.  It  passed  up  and  struck  the  base  of  his  skull 
and  fractured  the  external  plate,  and  it  glanced  oft'  in 
some  direction  so  that  it  could  not  be  found.  It  fract- 
ured the  base  of  the  skull.  That  is  all. 

"  Q.  How  many  pieces  of  the  missiles  which  you  have 
taken,  shells  you  have  taken  from  different  officers,  have 
you  given  to  Profs.  Patton  and  Haines? 

"  A.  I  divided  the  piece  1  took  out  of  Lawrence 
Murphy's  foot  into  three  portions.  One  I  gave  to  Pat- 
ton  and  tvvo  to  Haines. 

Dr.  ANDREW  J.  BAXTER,  one  of  the  surgeons  of  the 
county  hospital,  testified  (K,  36)  that  on  the  night  of 
the  4th  of  May  he  was  at  the  Desplaines  street  station. 


230 

"  Q.  Tell  me  now,  from  your  examination,  what  you 
discovered,  and  give  me  the  names  of  the  officers,  if  you 
can? 

"  A.  Well,  I  can't  remember  them  all.  They  were 
brought  in  so  fast,  and  a  good  many  of  them  were 
strangers  to  me,  and  I  was  not  particular  about  names. 
It  was  their  wounds  that  I  was  looking  after.  I  attended 
to  officers  whose  names  I  don't  remember — I  didn't 
know:  but  I  remember  some  of  them,  as,  for  instance, 
Officer  Redden.  He  was  shot  in  the  right  leg.  The  leg 
was  simply  shattered. 

"  Q.     That  was  a  shot  or  a  bomb  wound? 

"  A.  That  was  a  bomb  wound.  I  removed  the  piece  of 
bomb  myself.  And  there  was  an  officer — well,  I  saw 
Officer  Barrett  also — and  there  was  an  officer  by  the 
name  of  Sullivan,  I  think  he  was  wounded  in  the  side  and 
also  in  the  thigh.  He  was  the  first  officer,  by  the  by,  that 
I  saw. 

"  Q.     That  is,  Officer  Sullivan? 

"  A.  I  think  that  was  the  name.  He  had  a  large, 
ragged  wound  in  the  upper  part  of  the  thigh,  so  that 
you  could  put  your  hand  in;  and  I  supposed  from  the 
character  of  the  wound  that  I  would  find  some  large 
missile  embedded  in  the  tissues  of  the  thigh;  but, 
after  considerable  search,  I  could  not  find  anything, 
and  was  somewhat  annoyed  to  think  that  I  could  not 
find  it,  but  ultimately  I  found  it  on  the  inside  of  the  thigh. 
It  was  one  of  these  pieces  of  zinc.  Then  he  had  another 
wound  on  the  outside  of  the  leg,  and  the  piece  I  removed 
from  the  inside  passed  between  the  bones,  and  I  removed 
it  from  the  inside.  Then  he  had  a  wound  on  the  opposite 
leg  which  looked  like  a  scratch,  but  on  further  investiga- 
tion, I  found  it  was  also  made  with  one  of  these  pieces  of 
zinc,  but  it  had  hit  the  surface  edgewise,  and  consequently 
it  did  not  make  a  large  external  wound.  The  external 
wound  depended  on  the  manner  in  which  the  missile  hit  the 
surface.  These  bomb  pieces  were  undoubtedly  cut  from 
pieces  of  zinc,  and  they  were  oblique,  of  course,  after 
leaving  the  bomb.  They  would  be  revolving  on  the  axes, 
and  if  they  happened  to  hit  the  surface  edgewise,  they 
would  make  a  linear  incision,  but  if  they  hit  it  flat,  they 


231 

made  a  very  large,  ragged  wound,   which   made  part  of 
the  wound  have  this  torn,  ragged  appearance. 

"  Q.     Did  you  find  any  gunshot  wounds? 

"  A.     I  think  two  or  three  that  I  remember." 

Dr.  EDWARD  W.  LEE,  surgeon  at  the  county  hospi- 
tal, testified  (K,  559)  that  he  was  at  the  station  that 
night  and  dressed  about  seventeen  or  eighteen  at  the  sta- 
tion. "  I  suppose,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  about 
"  seven  or  eight  more  at  the  hospital,  besides  going  over 
"  those  again  that  had  already  been  dressed  at  the  station. 
"  The  majority  of  those  I  attended  were-  wounded  with 
"pieces  of  the  bomb — fragments  of  the  shell;  there  were 
"  three  or  four  wounded  with  pistol  wounds,  but  the  great 
"  majority  were  wounded  with  fragments  of  shell."  Offi- 
cer Shannon  had  eighteen  wounds;  Officer  McEnnery 
twelve  or  thirteen. 

FERDINAND  HENROTIN,  examining  surgeon  at  the 
county  hospital,  testified  (K,  562)  that  he  had  examined 
all  together  sixty-seven  of  the  officers,  of  whom  about 
half  a  dozen  were  wounded  with  bullets,  the  rest  with 
pieces  of  the  bomb. 

Dr.  F.  H.  NEWMAN  testified  (K,  86)  that  he  attended 
upon  some  of  the  wounded  police  officers;  most  of  them 
wounded  with  pieces  of  shell;  that  some  were  wounded 
with  bullets;  that  the  bullets  varied  in  size;  some  large 
and  some  small. 

Dr.  THEODORE  J.  BLUTHARDT,  county  physician  of 
Cook  county,  testified  (K,  612)  that  he  made  the  -post- 
mortem examination  upon  the  body  of  Matthias  J.  Degan 
at  the  Cook  County  Hospital  on  the  5th  of  May. 

"  I  found  a  cut  upon  his  forehead;    another  cut  over 


232 

the  eye,  and  another  deep  cut  about  two  inches  in  length 
on  the  left  thigh.  I  found  a  large,  apparently  a  gunshot 
wound,  a  hole  in  the  middle  of  the  left  thigh.  I  found 
seven  explosive  marks  on  his  right  leg,  and  two  other  ex- 
plosive marks  on  the  left  leg.  The  "large  hole  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  left  thigh  was  the  mortal  wound.  It  was 
caused  by  an  explosive,  a  missile,  a  piece  of  lead  in  the 
form  of  a  piece  of  lead  that  had  penetrated  the  skin  and 
destroyed  the  inside  muscles  of  the  left  thigh  to  a  large 
extent,  lacerated  also  the  femoral  artery,  which  caused 
the  man  to  bleed  to  death.  Besides  that  he  had  a  wound 
on  the  dorsum  of  the  left  foot,  which  was  also  caused  by 
a  piece  of  lead  that  forced  its  way  through  the  bones  of 
the  ankle-joint.  I  found  it  lodged  behind  the  internal 
malleolus  or  inside  ankle  of  the  left  foot.  Both  pieces  of 
that  missile  I  preserved  and  gave  to  Mr.  Furthmann, 
of  the  state's  attorney's  office." 

(The  witness  here  produced  an  envelope  containing 
two  pieces  of  metal.) 

"  This  larger  piece — there  is  a  piece  that  was  cut  off 
since — is  the  one  that  destroyed  the  femoral  artery.  The 
other  piece  I  don't  recognize.  The  other  piece  was 
nearly  the  size  of  this  one.  *  *  *  The  external  ap- 
pearance of  that  wound  on  the  left  thigh,  as  stated  before, 
was  that  of  a  rifle  ball.  It  was  round  and  not  very  rag- 
ged edges.  It  was  clean  cut  through  the  skin.  The 
piece  of  skin  was  clean  taken  out,  but  the  muscles  of  the 
thigh  of  the  inside  were  all  contused  and  torn  and  formed 
a  kind  of  pulpy  cavity,  as  large  as  a  goose  egg  on  the 
inside.  That  missile  which  had  passed  through  the 
muscles  was  lodged  in  the  upper  part  of  the  thigh  about 
four  inches  above  where  it  entered;  it  was  not  a  bullet 
wound.  Degan  died  from  hemorrhage  of  the  femoral  ar- 
tery caused  by  the  wound  that  I  described.  *  *  *  I 
made  five  other  post-mortem  examinations  personally 
(upon  the  bodies  of  policemen  who  died  from  the  effects 
of  wounds  on  the  4th  of  May).  One  of  them,  George  F. 
Miller,  died  from  the  effects  of  a  pistol-ball  wound." 


233 


(DO     THE  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  BOMBS. 

Prof.  WALTER  S.  HAINES,  professor  of  chemistry  in 
Rush  Medical  College,  testified  (K,  584)  that  at  the 
request  of  the  state's  attorney  he  examined  several  pieces 
of  metal. 

"  I  received  from  Capt.  Schaack,  on  the  24th  of  June  of 
this  year,  a  piece  of  bomb  said  to  have  been  connected 
with  Lingg;  and  therefore  I,  for  the  purpose  of  designa- 
tion, call  it '  Lingg  bomb,  No.  i.'  On  the  same  day  I  re- 
ceived from  Dr.  J.  B.  Murphy  a  piece  of  metal  said  to 
have  been  taken  from  Officer  Murphy,  and  therefore  des- 
ignated by  me  as  «  Murphy  bomb.'  On  the  22d  of  July  I 
received  a  piece  of  metal  said  to  have  been  taken  from 
Officer  Began,  and  which  I  therefore  designate  as  the 
'  Degan  bomb.'  The  last  piece  was  received  from  Mr. 
Furthmann.  I  subsequently  received  from  Officer  Wha- 
len  a  piece  of  bomb  said  to  have  been  connected  with 
Lingg,  which  1  therefore  designate  as  '  Lingg  bomb  No. 
2.'  The  next  day  I  received  from  Capt.  Schaack  pieces 
of  two  other  bombs,  also  said  to  have  been  connected 
connected  with  Lingg,  which  I  designate,  therefore,  as  the 
'Lingg  bombs  3  and  4';  and  the  same  day  I  likewise  re- 
ceived from  Mr.  Furthmann  a  portion  of  a  bomb  said  to  have 
been  connected  with  Mr.  Spies,  which  I  designate,  there- 
fore, as  the  '  Spies  bomb.'  These  were  all  subjected  to 
chemical  examination.  The  Lingg  bombs,  those  which  I 
have  designated  as  the  Lingg  bombs,  Nos.  i,  2,  3  and  4, 
had  a  similar  composition;  laying  aside  the  bomb  No.  2, 
laying  that  aside  for  the  present,  the  other  three  bombs, 
Lingg  bomb  No.  i,  No.  3  and  No.  4,  were  found  to  con- 
sist chiefly  of  lead,  -with  a  small  percentage  of  tin,  and 
traces,  in  addition  of  antimony,  iron  and  zinc.  The  amount 
of  tin  in  these  bombs  differed,  each  one  containing  a 
slightly  different  proportion  from  any  of  the  others.  One 
of  them  contained  about  one  and  nine-tenths  per  cent,  of 
tin,  the  remainder  being  lead,  and  traces  of  antimony, 
iron  and  zinc.  Another  contained  about  two  and  four- 


234 

tenths  per  cent,  of  tin,  the  remainder  being  lead,  with 
traces  of  antimony,  iron  and  zinc.  The  third  contained 
about  tivo  and  a  half  per  cent,  of  tin,  the  remainder  being 
lead,  with  the  same  traces  of  antimony,  iron  and  zinc. 
The  three,  therefore,  of  the  four  bombs  that  were  ex- 
amined had  very  similar  composition,  consisting  of  exactly 
the  same  constituents,  the  only  difference  being  a  little 
variation  in  the  amount  of  tin  in  the  three.  The  bomb 
designated  as  the  Lingg  bomb  No.  2  differed  somewhat 
from  the  other  three.  It  contained  more  tin,  and  conse- 
quently less  lead.  It  also  contained  a  little  more  antimony 
and  a  little  more  zinc.  The  amount  of  tin  in  this  bomb 
was  nearly  seven  per  cent.,  the  amount  of  lead  being  cor- 
respondingly reduced.  *  *  I  found  that 
the  Murphy  bomb  -was  composed  of  the  same 
constituents  as  I  found  in  the  Lingg  bombs  1 
hare  spoken  of,  namely,  tin,  a  small  proportion 
of  lead,  chiefly  with  traces  of  antimony,  iron  and  zinc, 
the  amount  of  tin  being  in  round  numbers  one  and  six-tenths 
per  cent.  The  piece  designated  as  the  Degan  bomb  con- 
sisted of  the  same  constituents  as  the  others,  namely,  of  tin, 
lead  with  traces  of  antimony,  iron  and  zinc — the  amount 
of  tin  being  in  round  numbers  one  and  six  or  seven-tenths 
per  cent.,  the  remainder  lead,  with  the  traces  I  have  al- 
ready spoken  of.  The  Spies  bomb,  the  bomb  that  I  call 
the  Spies  bomb,  was  found  like  the  others  to  consist  also 
chiefly  of  lead  with  a  small  quantity  of  tin  and  traces  of  the 
same  antimony,  iron  and  zinc.  The  amount  of  tin  in  this 
bomb  was  one  and  one-tenths  per  cent.,  in  round  numbers, 
the  remainder  being  lead  with  traces  of  the  other  metals  I 
have  spoken  of. 

"  Q.  Before  you  get  to  the  bomb  which  you  call  Linng 
bomb  No.  2,  you  say-fhat  the  ingredients  entering  into  the 
composition  of  all  the  pieces  which  you  have  described  so 
far  were  the  same? 

"  A.  The  constituents  were  the  same,  differing  slightly 
in  quantity. 

"  Q.  That  is,  you  found  the  same  constituents  in  every 
piece  you  have  described  so  far;  the  only  difference  was 
a  difference  in  proportions? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  You  found  more  tin  in  some  than  you  did  in 
others? 


235 

"  A.  Every  bomb  differed  from  every  other  bomb  exam- 
ined slightly  in  the  amount  of  tin,  but  they  all  contained 
the  essential  ingredients  the  same. 

"  Q.  Did  the  different  pieces  of  the  same  bomb  that 
you  examined  differ  slightly  in  their  proportions? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir;  the  two  halves  of  the  same  bomb  differed 
slightly  in  the  proportions  of  the  metal  -present. 

"  Q.  Did  the  piece  of  metal  which  you  call  the  Mur- 
phy bomb  differ  in  its  proportions  from  the  piece  of  metal 
you  describe  as  the  Degan  bomb? 

"  A.  It  differed  slightly.  The  Degan  bomb  contained 
slightly  more  tin  than  that  which  I  call  the  Murphy  bomb. 

"  Q.     But  the  ingredients  were  the  same? 

"  A.      The  ingredients  were  exactly  the  same. 

"  Q.  Is  there  any  commercial  product  or  substance 
anywhere  from  which  those  pieces  of  metal  could  have 
been  made? 

"  A.  There  is  no  commercial  substance  with  which  I  am 
acquainted  that  lias  such  a  composition. 

"  Q.  This  lead,  commercial  lead,  does  it  contain  any 
ingredients  except  lead  itself? 

"  A.  Commercial  lead  frequently  contains  traces  of 
other  substances,  but  as  far  as  I  am  acquainted  commer- 
cialy  lead  never  contains  tin. 

"  Q.     Of  what  is  solder  composed? 

"  A.  Solder  is  composed  of  a  mixture  of  tin  and  lead. 
It  generally  consists  of  from  a  third  to  a  half  tin,  and  the 
remainder  lead. 

"  Q.  What  commercial  substances  could  have  been 
used  to  produce  the  mixture  which  you  examined? 

"  A.  Lead  must  have  been  the  basis  for  the  preparation 
of  these  various  articles,  and  this  must  have  been  mixed 
either  with  tin  or  with  some  other  substance  containing  tin, 
as  for  instance,  solder.  Slight  traces  of  antimony,  zinc 
and  iron  are  present  in  a  great  number  of  metals — it  came 
probably  from  lead  and  tin,  or  lead  and  solder  used  in 
compounding  them. 

"  Q.  Now,  describe  the  Lingg  bomb  which  you  des- 
ignate as  bomb  No.  2?  .  • 

"  A.  That  contains  rather  more  tin  than  the  ot/iersand 
a  proportionate  less  quantity  of  lead.  It  contains  about 
seven  per  cent,  of  tin.  It  contains  also  more  antimony 


236 

than  the  others  contained,  and  it  contained  a  perceptibly 
larger  proportion  of  zinc,  and  a  minute  trace  in  addition 
of  copper,  differing,  therefore,  somewhat  from  the  other 
bombs  tested. 

"  Q.     Have  you  examined  these  articles? 

"  A.     I  have  tested  them  partially. 

"  Q.     What  is  that  which  I  now  hand  you? 

"  A.  This  is  a  piece  of  ordinary  commercial  solder, 
composed  essentially  of  tin  and  lead. 

"  Q.     What  is  that  which  I  now  hand  you? 

"  A.  This  is  a  piece  of  tin,  block  tin,  a  very  good 
commercial  article  of  that  metal. 

"  Q.     Did  you  examine  this  piece  of  candlestick? 

"  A.     I  have  examined  it. 

"  Q.     Of  what  is  that  composed? 

"  A.  That  is  composed  of  tin  and  lead,  zuilh  a  certain 
amount  of  antimony  and  zinc  and  a  little  copper, 

"  Q.     Can  you  state  the  percent,  of  antimony  in  No.  2? 

"  A.  I  didn't  separate  the  antimony  in  No.  2,  and  didn't 
make  an  accurate  determination  of  it.  The  precise 
quantity  of  the  antimony  and  tin  is  very  difficult  to  deter- 
mine where  it  is  present  in  a  small  amount.  I  judge  it 
was  a  fraction  of  one  per  cent." 

Witness  testified  that,  Prof.  Patton  being  sick,  he  had 
worked  with  Prof.  Delafontaine. 

"  Q.     Some  of  these  bombs  you  took  in  pieces? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     Can  you  designate  this  as  one  of  them? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  bomb  that  I  designate  as 
the  Spies  bomb,  and  I  cut  a  little  myself  from  this  top  of 
the  bomb. 

"  Q.  These  pieces  of  metal  I  show  you— the  solder 
and  tin — you  examined  yourself? 

«  A.     I  did. 

"  Q.  Look  at  the  bomb  which  I  now  show  you? 
(The  shell  which  the  reporter,  Wilkinson,  said  he  re- 
ceived from  Spies.) 

"  A.  This  is  a  bomb  from  which  I  scraped  pieces 
myself;  the  bomb  having  been  given  me  for  that  purpose 
by  Capt.  Schack." 


237 

The  witness  identified  the  various  bombs  from  which 
he  had  taken  portions  for  examination,  and  also  the  pieces 
of  tin,  of  lead,  of  solder,  and  a  piece  of  toy  or  candlestick 
which  was  previously  identified  as  having  been  found  in 
Lingg's  trunk. 

On  cross-examination  he  testified: 

"  Q.  I  suppose  if  you  take  the  ordinary  commercial 
tin,  and  the  ordinary  commercial  lead,  and  mix  them,  you 
will  find  traces  of  antimony,  zinc  and  iron  that  you  spoke 
about? 

"  A.     Generally,  yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  You  would  not  expect  from  the  analysis  you 
made  of  this  composition  that  there  was  a  distinct  putting 
together  in  a  vessel  of  one  portion  of  antimony  and  one 
of  iron,  and  one  of  lead,  and  one  of  zinc  and  one  of  tin, 
to  form  what  you  have  here? 

"  A.  I  do  not  think  from  the  small  quantity  that  exists 
of  antimony,  iron  and  zinc,  that  they  were  deliberately 
added.  They  probably  came  as  impurities  in  the  other 
two  constituents. 

"  Q.  In  which  of  the  constituents  would  they  be  as 
impurities? 

"  A.     They  may  be  present  in  both. 

***** 

"  Q.  So  then  you  would  say  that  in  the  formation  of 
the  metal  from  which  all  these  bombs  were  made,  that 
there  was  a  slight  quantity  of  commercial  tin,  a  very 
slight  proportion,  probably  not  over  two  per  cent,  of  the 
others,  and  the  lead? 

"  A.  Either  tin,  or  some  compound  containing  it,  as 
for  instance,  solder  or  some  other  substance  containing  it." 

MARK  DELAFONTAINE,  a  chemist,  testified  (K,  595) 
that  he  had  made  examinations  of  various  articles  identi- 
fied by  Prof.  Haines;  that  their  results  agreed. 

"  Q.     Did  you  make  an   examination  of  the   piece   of 
candlestick  or  toy  which  I  now  show  you? 
"  A.     Yes,  sir. 
"  Q.     What  did  you  find  it  to  contain? 


238 

"  A.  I-  found  it  to  be  a  mixture  of  antimony,  tin,  lead, 
zinc,  and  a  trace  of  copper.  There  was  probably  not 
over  two  per  cent,  of  zinc.  The  tin  and  antimony  were 
about  in  equal  proportions.  Then  there  was  more  lead, 
but  I  didn't  do  any  weighing.  It  was  what  we  call  a 
qualitative  examination.  *  *  * 

"  Q.  Is  there  any  commercial  product  which  you 
know  of,  any  one  commercial  product  of  which  the  pieces 
of  bomb  which  you  examined  could  be  composed? 

"  A.  I  don't  know  of  any.  I  have  analyzed  commer- 
cial lead  of  different  brands  many  times  during  the  past 
twelve  or  fourteen  years,  but  I  never  found  a  sample  of 
lead  containing  the  least  trace  of  tin,  and  I  do  not  believe 
that  there  is  any  at  all. 

"  Q.  So  that  the  pieces  you  examined  you  would  say 
were  composition? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir.  Of  course  there  is  solder,  which  con- 
tains tin  and  lead,  but  their  proportions  are  vastly  differ- 
ent— from  thirty  to  fifty  per  cent,  tin." 

The  witness  also  testified,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing 
whether  the  bombs  could  have  possibly  been  made  from 
old  pieces  of  lead  pipe,  upon  which  large  quantities  of 
solder  had  been  used,  that  he  "  took  a  piece  of  old  lead 
"  pipe  that  had  been  very  much  mended,  that  is,  much 
"  solder  put  on  it.  It  was  certainly  as  bad  as  it  could  be 
"  in  that  respect.  I  melted  it  and  analyzed  it,  and  the 
"  amount  of  tin  contained  in  that  mixture  was  about 
"  seven-tenths  of  one  per  cent. 

"  Describe  to  the  jury  about  how  much  solder  there 
was  on  that  piece  of  pipe? 

"  A.  Well,  there  was  at  both  times — the  cirrumfer- 
ence  of  the  pipe — the  sample  was  about  nine  inches  long. 
Then  there  was  a  crack  from  one  end  to  the  other  that 
had  been  plugged  with  plenty  of  solder,  not  only  the 
crack  filled,  but  there  was  a  great  deal  on  the  surface  and 
above  the  surface  of  the  metal. 

"  Q.  Was  it  what  the  plumbers  call  '  wiped  '  at  both 
ends? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 


239 
"  Q.     In  addilion  to  that  there  was  solder  running  along 

o  o 

one  side? 

"  A.  Yes,  evidently  the  pipe  had  burst  and  it  was 
filled  with  solder  lavishly. 

"  Q.  You  melted  that  and  found  the  proportion  of 
tin  was  less  than  one  per  cent? 

"  A.     It  was  less  than  seven-tenths  of  one  per  cent. 

******* 

"  Q.  This  experiment  you  speak  of  there,  with  the 
lead  pipe — what  was  the  weight  of  it  altogether? 

"  A.  I  did  it  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out,  if  pos- 
sible, whether  those  bombs  were  made  exclusively  by 
melting  old  lead  pipes,  which  are  generally  more  or  less 
covered." 

Thus,  it  will  be  seen  from  the  testimony  of  the  chemists 
who  made  examinations  of  four  of  the  bombs  traced  by  the 
evidence  directly  to  Lingg,  and  admitted  to  have  been 
manufactured  by  him,  and  of  the  Spies  bomb,  and  also 
two  pieces  of  the  bomb  taken  from  officers  wounded  at 
the  Haymarket,  that  the  composition  of  these  bombs,  with 
the  exception  of  one  of  Lingg's,  were  almost  identical. 
The  chief  ingredient  was  lead;  next  to  that  was  tin;  there 
were  traces  in  each  of  iron  and  antimony.  No  commer- 
cial product,  except  solder,  contains  both  tin  and  lead. 
Solder  always  contains  at  least  thirty  per  cent,  of  tin, 
sometimes  more;  so  the  bombs  could  not  have  been  made 
of  solder.  They  could  not  have  been  made  of  old  pieces 
of  water-pipe,  upon  which  solder  had  been  used,  because 
Delafontaine  hunted  for  the  worst  specimen  he  could  find, 
and  upon  analyzing  that,  found  that  the  percentage  of  tin 
was  less  than  seven-eighths  of  one  per  cent.  Hence,  the 
bombs  were  of  composite  manufacture. 

The  chemists  also  analyzed  various  articles  found  in 
Lingg's  trunk;  some  of  these  articles  they  found  to  be  pure 
lead;  one  a  piece  of  pure  block  tin;  others  commercial 
solder,  and  one,  which  is  described  in  the  evidence  as  a 


240 

candlestick  or  toy,  analyzed  by  Delafontaine,  contained 
antimony,  tin,  lead,  zinc  and  a  trace  of  copper.  This  can- 
dlestick, or  toy,  contains  the  very  ingredients  found  in  the 
Lingg  bomb,  which  differed  from  the  others.  Thus,  Lingg 
had  in  his  possession  all  of  the  ingredients  which  entered 
into  the  composition  of  the  various  bombs;  and  when  we 
remember  that  he  melted  his  metals  in  a  small  ladle  (a 
photograph  of  which  appears  as  People's  Exhibit  132), 
and  that  he  necessarily,  with  the  rude  instruments  at  his 
disposal,  cast  them  half  a  shell  at  a  time,  using  clay 
molds  made  by  himself  which  could  be  only  used  twice 
(K,  525),  the  small  difference  in  the  proportions  of  the 
ingredients  in  the  various  bombs  is  easily  accounted  for. 
Moreover,  it  appears  from  the  evidence  of  the  chemists, 
that  the  proportions  of  the  ingredients  differed  slightly  in 
different  parts  of  the  same  bomb,  and  when  in  addition  to 
this  we  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  the  nut 
which  wounded  the  bystander  at  the  time  of  the  explosion 
of  the  bomb  (I,  447),  and  which  was  afterwards 
extricated  from  his  body  (  K,  87  )  corresponded 
exactly  with  the  nuts  upon  the  Lingg  bombs  and  the 
"  Czar  "  bomb,  and  consider  all  of  the  facts  in  regard  to 
Lingg's  manufacture  of  bombs,  his  hasty  manufacture 
and  distribution  of  them  on  the  day  of  the  4th  of  May,  his 
statement  to  Seliger  on  the  night  of  the  4th  after  the  ex- 
plosion, that  "  he  was  even  now  scolded — chided  for  the 
"  work  he  had  done,"  there  can  be  no  question  that  the 
bomb  which  resulted  in  the  death  of  seven  officers  and 
the  wounding  of  sixty  others  was  one  of  the  bombs  made 
by  him.  "Good  food,"  as  he  (Lingg)  expressed  it, 
"  fodder  for  capitalists  and  police." 


241 


VII. 

AFTER  THE  HAYMARKET--ADDITIONAL  EVIDENCE 
OF  CONSPIRACY. 

REUBEN  SLAYTON,  a  police  officer,  testified  (I,  453) 
that  on  the  5th  of  May,  in  the  forenoon,  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  10  or  ii  o'clock,  he  arrested  the  defendant 
Fischer  at  the  office  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung;  Fischer 
was  coming  downstairs  at  the  time  he  was  placed  under 
arrest.  The  officer  found  upon  him  a  44-caliber,  self- 
acting  revolver,  loaded,  and  also  a  file,  Fischer  wore  a 
belt  and  sheath,  the  belt  having  a  brass  buckle  upon  it,  a 
buckle  of  the  JLehr  und  Wehr  Verein  society.  The  file 
was  in  the  sheath;  the  revolver  was  stuck  in  a  slit  in  the 
belt;  there  were  ten  cartridges  in  his  pocket;  there  was 
also  a  fuse  cap — a  fulminating  cap  in  his  pocket;  the 
fulminating  cap  was  bright. 

"  Q.     Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him? 

"  A.  No  more  than  in  regard  to  the  gun  (revolver). 
I  asked  him  what  he  carried  that  for;  he  carried  it  be- 
cause he  carried  money,  and  going  home  nights  was  to 
protect  himself.  The  file  was  an  old-fashioned,  three- 
corner  file,  ground,  -with  the  three  corners  to  a  sharp  edge, 
and  very  sharp  on  the  point,  and  had  a  wooden  handle" 

JOHN  1).  SHEA,  lieutenant  of  police,  testified  (J,  60) 
that  on  Fischer's  being  brought  to  the  station  he  had  a 
conversation  with  him. 

"  I  asked  him  what  he  had  that  belt  and  dagger  for, 
and  dynamite,  or  fulminating  caps.  He  said,  'Well,  I 
have  had  that  pistol  and  dagger  to  protect  myself.'  I 
said,  '  Did  you  have  it  that  night?'  He  said, '  No;  I  didn't 
have  it  with  me  that  night.'  I  says,  '  Where  was  it?' 
He  says,  '  In  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office.'  And  I  said, 


242 

'  How  did  you  come  to  have  it  on  you  Wednesday  morn- 
ing, when  Officer  Slay  ton  arrested  you?'  '  Well,'  he  says, 
'  when  I  came  to  the  office  I  put  it  on.'  I  says,  '  What 
did  you  put  it  on  for  in  the  office?  You  were  not  afraid 
of  anybody  in  the  office?'  '  Well]  he  says,  '  1 didn't  intend 
to  stay;  I  was  going  away?  And  I  says,  '  How  did  you 
come  in  possession  of  that  cap  that  was  found  in  your 
pocket,  that  fulminating  cap?'  He  said,  '  7  got  that  from 
a  man  in  front  of  the  Arbeit er  Zeitung  office  some  three 
months  before  that.''  I  asked  him  if  he  made  any  inquiry 
about  its  use;  he  said  no — never  paid  any  attention  to  it. 
I  also  said  to  him,  '  There  has  been  other  weapons  found, 
just  exactly  like  this,  the  one  you  are  carrying.  How  is 
it  that  you  happen  to  carry  the  same  kind  of  weapon  that 
has  been  found  with  the  others,  those  sharpened  daggers?' 
He  says,  « Well,  I  don't  know ;  I  made  that  myself  for  my 
own  protection.' ': 

JAMES  BONFIELD  says  (I,  353)  that  he  had  a  conver- 
sation with  Fischer  after  his  arest;  Fischer  was  up  in  the 
office,  and,  among  other  things,  was  asked  how  he  came 
by  a  fulminating  cap. 

"  Q.  That  was  a  fulminating  cap  similar  to  the  one 
vou  had  there? 

•/ 

"  A.  Yes;  it  was  found  in  his  pocket  at  the  time  of 
his  arrest.  He  said  he  got  it  from  a  socialist  that  used  to 
visit  Spies'  office,  about  four  months  previous;  that  he 
handed  it  to  him  on  the  stairs — the  foot  or  head  of  the 
stairs — and  he  claimed  he  did  not  know  what  it  was,  and 
he  carried  it  his  pocket  for  fourrmonths;  he  did  not  know 
what  use  there  was  for  it.  After  some  further  conversa- 
tion, in  answer  to  some  questions  put  by  Mr.  Furthmann, 
he  acknowledged  that  he  knew  what  it  was,  and  read  an  ac- 
count of  it,  and  the  use  of  it,  in  If  err  Mosfs  book. 

"  Q.     In  Herr  MosCs  Science  of  War? 

"  A.      Yes. 

"  Q.     At  what  place  was  that? 

"  A.     At  the  detective's  office. 

"  Q.  What  was  the  appearance  of  that  fulminating 
cap,  as  to  whether  it  had  been  tarnished,  or  as  to  whether 
it  was  bright? 


243 

"A.  //  looked  to  be  perfectly  new,  and  the  fulminate 
was  fresh  and  bright  on  the  inside" 

And  he  testified  further,  in  relating  a  conversation  with 
Spies  (I,  350) : 

"  Q.  Where  did  he  (Spies)  say  he  went,  if  anywhere, 
when  he  got  off  the  wagon? 

"A.  He  went  in  the  east  alley;  that  would  be  the 
alley  next  to  Crane's,  my  recollection  is,  and  came  out  on 
Randolph  street.  He  said  he  approved  of  the  method,  but 
he  thought  it  was  a  little  premature;  that  the  time  had 
hardly  arrived  to  start  the  revolution  or  the  warfare.  I 
cannot  just  use  the  term  he  used,  but  that  is  the  sense  of  it." 

WILLIAM  JONES,  a  police  officer  (J,  91)  went  to 
the  office  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  about  half-past  8 
on  the  morning  of  the  5th  of  May,  and  assisted  in  search- 
ing the  building;  he  found  a  number  of  circulars,  some  of 
them  the  "Revenge"  circulars;  and  others  calling  the 
meeting  at  the  Haymarket.  Spies'  desk  in  the  front 
office  of  the  second  floor  of  the  building  was  locked;  on 
opening  it  he  found  a  coil  of  fuse,  two  bars  of  dynamite 
and  a  box  containing  fulminating  caps  for  the  explosion 
of  dynamite.  He  also  visited  Fischer's  house  some  days 
after  and  found  in  it  a  number  of  cartridges  that  fitted  the 
revolver  taken  from  Fischer,  and  a  blouse  such  as  was 
worn  by  members  of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  Verein. 

JAMES  W.  DUFFY,  a  police  officer,  testified  (J, 
107)  that  he,  in  company  with  several  other  officers, 
searched  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  building  on  the  5th  of 
May:  that  they  found  manuscript  of  the  "  Revenge"  cir- 
cular, copies  of  the  "  Revenge"  and  of  the  Haymarket 
circulars  and  various  other  manuscripts  which  were  after- 
wards identified  as  being  in  the  handwriting  of  Spies  or 
Schwab.  He  says: 


244 

"  There  is  a  shelf  upon  the  left-hand  side  as  you  go  in 
the  closet,  and  up  on  there  there  was  a  large  package 
composed  of — well,  it  looked  like  a  coffee-sack  saturated 
with  oil  and  paper  and  stuff.  We  took  it  down  off  the 
shelf  and  opened  it  and  examined  it;  didn't  know  exactly 
what  it  was.  It  looked  something  like  sawdust,  and 
brown  stuff,  kind  of  an  oily  substance;  probably  four  or 
five  pounds  of  it.  We  took  it  to  the  Central  station;  it 
was  put  in  a  vault  there.  I  afterwards  learned  that  it 
was  tested." 

He  identified  the  package  which  was  then  in  court  as 
being  the  same  one  which  he  took  from  the  shelf — a 
package  which  was  shown  by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Buck 
to  be  dynamite. 

JAMES  BONFIELD,  a  police  officer  (I,  344-5)  >  went  to 
the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office  on  the  morning  of  the  5th  of 
May,  and  arrested  Spies,  Schwab  and  a  brother  of  Spies; 
also  assisted  in  searching  the  office. 

"  In  Mr.  Spies'  office  I  found  a  small  piece  of  fuse  and 
a  fulminating  cap,  and  a  large  double-acting  revolver. 

"  Q.     How  much  fuse? 

"  A.  About  five  inches,  I  should  judge;  it  might  have 
been  more  or  less. 

"  Q.     You  have  them  here? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     Please  show  it? 

(Same  exhibited  to  counsel.) 

"  Where  did  you  find  that? 

"  A.  I  found  that  revolver  (indicating)  under  a  wash- 
stand  in  the  office;  that  dirk  file  was  along  with  it,  about 
as  those  lay  now  (indicating),  with  the  paper  doubled 
over  them  loosely.  I  found  that  piece  of  fuse  and  that 
fulminating  cap  (indicating). 

"  Q.     Describe  that  fulminating  cap  and  fuse? 

"A.  It  is  an  ordinary  fuse;  the  fulminate  is  in  the  end 
of  the  cap;  the  fuse  is  inserted  that  way  (indicating),  and 
the  cap  is  pinched,  and  that  is  inserted  in  the  dynamite 
and  the  whole  closed.  I  have  used  it.  You  can  cut  the 


245 

fuse  according  to  the  distance  that  you  want  to  get  away 
from  the  explosion. 

"  Q.     What  is  the  cap  used  for? 

"  A.  I  never  saw  it  used  for  anything  except  dyna- 
mite and  nitro-glycerine.  I  have  used  it  in  mines  for  that 
purpose.  The  shot  from  that  cap  when  it  explodes 
touches  the  dynamite  off,  or  nitro-glycerine." 

The  revolver  was  a  44-caliber. 

The  same  witness  testified  (K,  648): 

"  Q.  You  are  one  of  the  parties  who  searched  the  Ar- 
beiter  Zeitung office? 

"  A.     I  am. 

"  Q.     Did  you  find  any  banners  there? 

«  A.     I  did. 

"  Q.     How  many? 

"  A.     I  think  about  forty. 

"  Q.     How  many  of  them  can  you  identify  now? 

"  A.     Those  over  there  (pointing  to  banners). 

"  Q.  The  rest  you  are  not  able  to  say  whether  they 
were  found  there? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Point  out  the  ones  found  there,  and  the  inscrip- 
tions?" 

(The  witness  here  indicated  the  ones.) 

Mr.  GRINNELL:  Let  Mr.  Gauss  take  the  stand  and 
translate  the  inscriptions. 

"  Mr.  INGHAM  (to  Mr.  Gauss) :  Q.  What  is  the  in- 
scription? 

"  Mr.  GAUSS:  Every  government  is  a  conspiracy 
against  the  people. 

"  Q.     Is  it  the  same  on  both  sides? 

"  Mr.  GAUSS:     This  is  the  same. 

"Q.  (To  Mr.  Bonfield):  Mr.  Bonfield,  is  that  another 
one  you  found  there? 

"  Mr.  BONFIELD:     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     (To  Mr.  Gauss) :     What  is  that? 

"  Mr.  GAUSS:     Down  with  all  laws. 

"  Q.     Is  it  the  same  on  the  other  side? 

"  A.     It  is  the  same. 

"  Q.  (To  Mr.  Bonfield):  What  are  those?  (point- 
ing.) 


246 

"  Mr.  BONFIELD:     Small  black  flags. 

"  Q.  Those  are  two  red  flags  without  any  inscrip- 
tion? 

"  Mr.  BONFIELD:     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     Was  that  found  at  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"Q.     (To  Mr.  Gauss)  :     What  is  that? 

"  Mr.  GAUSS:  That  is  a  German  expression.  It  means 
*  Boys,  hold  tightly  to  it.'  «  Stick  together.'  '  Proleta- 
rians of  all  countries  unite.'  '  Club  together.'  '  Interna- 
tional Workingmen's  Association,  Sec.  5,  Chicago.' 

"  Q.  Can  you  read  the  center? 

"  Mr.  GAUSS:  '  Dedicated  by  the  Socialistic  Women's 
Society,  the  i6th  of  July,  1875,  Chicago.' 

"  (Q.  To  Mr.  Bonfield:  Was  that  found  at  the  Ar- 
beiter Zeitung  office? 

"  Mr.  BONFIELD:  Yes,  sir.  '  Dick  Oglesby,  who  mur- 
dered three  poor  workingmen  in  Lemont,  is  not  in  this 
this  procession.  You  can  see  him  later.' 

':  Mr.  GRINNELL:     Is  the  same  thing  on  the  other  side? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  '  Carter  Harrison,  who  clubbed  our  citizens  during  the 
carmen's  strike,  is  not  in  this  procession.  You  can  see 
him  later. 

"  Q.     That  is  the  same  on  the  other  side? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir." 

MICHAEL  H.  MARKS,  a  police  officer  (K,  320),  was  one 
of  those  who  went  to  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  building  on 
the  5th;  he  went  into  the  second  floor  of  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung  building,  where  he  met  the  defendant,  Neebe. 
"  I  says,  '  who  has  charge  of  this  office?'  He  (Neebe) 
"  says,  '  I  am  in  charge  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Spies  and 
"  Schwab.'  I  says,  '  Who  occupies  those  rooms  above 
"  this?'  He  says,  '  That  is  the  editorial  rooms  of  the  Ar- 
"  beiter  Zeitung.'  I  says,  '  Who  occupies  that  floor?' 
"  He  says,  '  They  are  the  offices  of  Mr.  Spies  and  Mr. 
"  Schwab.'  I  says,  '  I  am  going  upstairs  to  make  a 
"  search  of  that  floor.'  He  says,  '  All  right;  you  can  go, 


247 

''  but  you  will  not  find  anything  there  but  papers  and 
"  writing  material.'  I  went  up  stairs  and  Mr.  Neebe  fol- 
"  lowed  me.  As  I  came  in  there  was  a  desk  there  facing 
"  west;  it  was  the  front  room  on  the  third  floor  on  the 
"  east  side.  I  asked  Mr.  Neebe  whose  this  desk  was. 
"  He  says:  'That  is  the  desk  of  Mr.  August  Spies.'  I 
"  then  turned  around  the  room,  going  east,  and  there  I 
"  found  a  closet.  Officer  Duffy  then  came  in  and  walked 
"  towards  the  closet  with  me.  I  seen  a  shelf  about  ten 
"  feet  high.  I  got  a  chair  and  got  onto  it,  and  on  the  top 
"  of  the  shelf  I  seen  a  large  bag,  kind  of  bag  with  brown 
"  paper  around  it,  and  I  lifted  it  off  the  shelf  and  brought 
"  it  down,  and  walked  towards  Mr.  Spies'  desk  and  placed 
"  it  on  a  chair.  Mr.  Neebe  was  standing  there  and  I 
"  says,  '  What  is  this? '  He  says,  *  I  don't  know.'  I  opened 
"  and  felt  it.  It  was  kind  of  yellowish,  greasy  sawdust. 
"  He  says,  '  I  guess  that  is  for  cleaning  type.'  Officer 
"  Haas  was  standing  by  the  door,  and  I  says,  '  You  better 
"  g°  upstairs  and  call  down  Lieut.  Shea;'  he  goes  up 
"  stairs  and  Lieut.  Shea  comes  down  and  looks  at  it  and 
"  he  says,  '  You  better  be  careful  how  you  handle  that. 
"  Take  it  right  over  to  the  Central  station.'" 

Witness  further  said  that  it  was  the  same  package 
which  had  been  produced  in  court.  He  was  present  at 
the  time  of  the  experiment  made  by  the  witness  Buck. 
The  material  he  experimented  with  was  the  same  sub- 
stance that  he  found  in  the  closet. 

Buck,  the  expert,  testified  that  it  was  dynamite^  and 
described  his  experiment  with  it. 

FRED  L.  BUCK  testified  (J,  74 )  that  he  had  experi- 
mented with  the  substance;  that  it  was  dynamite,  and 
described  the  effects  of  explosions  of  the  portions  of  it 
with  which  the  experiments  were  made. 


248 

HERMAN  SCHUTTLER,  a  police  officer,  testified  (K, 
431)  that  he  arrested  Lingg  at  No.  80  Ambrose  street  on 
the  I4th  day  of  May.  Lingg  was  in  the  kitchen. 

"  I  went  into  the  room  and  took  him  for  another  man. 
I  had  a  picture  of  him,  and  he  was  described  to  me  as  a 
man  with  chin  whiskers  and  a  mustache.  I  had  found  out 
that  he  lived  there,  and  I  said,  '  How  do  you  do,  Mr. 
Klein  '  ?  As  soon  as  I  said  that  he  stepped  back  and 
drew  a  revolver  and  half  cocked  it."  (The  witness  identi- 
fied the  revolver.)  "I  grabbed  the  revolver  and  him, 
and  I  fell  down  on  the  floor  together,  and  struggled  for 
the  possession  of  it.  Whenever  the  revolver  would  be 
towards  me  he  would  try  his  best  to  shoot  it  off.  At  last 
he  began  to  get  it  cocked  again,  and  the  only  way  I  could 
do  then,  I  got  his  thumb  into  my  mouth  and  bit  it,  and  he 
hollered;  at  that  time  Officer  Lowenstein  came  in  and 
pulled  him  off.  We  put  him  under  arrest.  At  first  he 
resisted  to  go  along,  and  I  wanted  him  to  come  along,  and 
he  said,  '  1  refuse  to  be  shackled,'  and  finally  I  got  my 
come-alongs  on  him,  and  he  went  along.  I  took  him  to 
Hinman  street  station  and  left  him  there  awhile  and  went 
back  to  search  the  house. 

"  Q.  Before  you  got  the  come-alongs  on  him,  while 
you  were  trying  to  get  them  on,  what  did  he  say? 

"  A.     He  said,  '  Shoot  and  kill  me.' 

"  Q.     Give  the  whole  conversation? 

"  A.  He  said,  '  You  can  shoot.'  Says  I,  '  If  you  don't 
stop  now  we  will  have  to  do  something.'  He  tried  to  get 
the  gun  again,  and  he  said,  *  I  wish  you  would  shoot  me.' 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  on  the 
way  to  the  Chicago  avenue  station? 

"  A.  I  said  to  him,  '  What  did  you  want  to  kill  me 
for  so  very  bad?'  I  said,  '  We  ain't  such  very  bad  sort  of 
fellows.'  He  said,  '  Personally  I  have  nothing  against 
you,  but  if  I  had  killed  you  and  your  partner  I  would 
have  been  satisfied.'  He  said,  '  I  would  have  killed  my- 
self if  I  had  got  away  with  you  and  your  partner.' ': 

On  the  yth  of  May,  at  about  3  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon, the  witness  went  to  the  room  of  Lingg,  on  Sedg- 
wick  street,  with  Officers  Stifft,  Lowenstein  and  Whalen. 


249 

*'  We  searched  a  trunk  and  found  a  round  lead  bomb  in  a 
"  stocking.  (Photograph  of  bomb  marked  People's  Ex- 
"  hibit,  129.)  The  bomb  was  in  a  trunk  in  the  south- 
"  east  room." 

"  Q.     What  else  did  you  find  there  besides  that  bomb? 
"  A.     In  another  stocking  I  found  a  large  navy  revol- 
ver." 

The  witness  identified  the  revolver.  He  turned  the 
bomb  over  to  Capt.  Schaack.  The  bomb  and  revolver 
were  both  loaded.  "  I  did  not  find  anything  else  besides 
"-  that,  except  this,  in  the  line  of  weapons.  I  was  there 
"  when  we  found  a  ladle  and  some  tools,  a  cold  chisel  and 
"  all  of  those  articles.  We  found  the  ladle  in  his  room, 

"  Q.  Did  you  notice  the  condition  of  the  closet  in  the 
bedroom  ? 

"  A.  I  was  not  there  at  first.  I  was  not  the  first 
officer  in  there.  Things  were  kind  of  upside  down  when 
I  got  there. 

"  Q.  Did  you  take  any  charges  out  of  this  gun  to- 
day? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     How  many? 

"  A.     Twelve. 

"  Q.  Look  at  the  trunk  which  is  placed  before  you — 
is  that  the  trunk  you  found  in  Louis  Lingg's  room? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     Were  those  letters,  '  L.  L.,'  on  it  at  that  time? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  Did  you  take  anything  out  of  the  trunk  your- 
self? 

"  A.     Yes. 

«  Q.     What? 

"  A.     I  took  out  that  bomb  and  the  stocking. 

"  Q.     Whereabouts  was  it? 

"  A.     Right  at  the  bottom. 

"  Q.     Where  was  the  revolver? 

"  A.  The  revolver  was  lying  right  about  there  (indi- 
cating the  position  in  trunk). 


250 

"  Q.  You  say  you  found  certain  tools  there  in  that 
room? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     What  were  the  tools? 

"  A.  A  kind  of  cold  chisel  and  I  believe  a  file.  There 
was  a  round,  porcelain-lined  blue  cup,  kind  of  round  cup, 
made  out  of  china.  When  I  saw  the  closet,  things  were  a 
little  torn  up.  Clothes  were  hanging  on  the  wall.  We 
saw  the  base-board — it  was  on  the  sides,  right  on  top  of 
the  base-board,  it  looked  like  it  had  been  tampered  with. 
I  helped  to  move  it. 

"  Q.     What  did  you  find  underneath  it? 

"A.     A  lot  of  torn -off  plaster. 

"  Q.     How  about  the  lathing? 

"  A.  The  lathing  was  sawed  so  you  could  get  your 
hand  between  the  floor,  and  between  the  bottom  of  the 
laths  underneath  and  the  floor  above.  The  lathing  was 
not  gone.  It  was  sawed  off.  It  did  not  reach  down  to 
the  floor. 

"  Q.  Look  at  this  cup  which  I  show  you — a  metal 
cup? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     Did  you  find  that  there? 

"  A.     Yes. 
********* 

"  Q:  Look  at  the  things  in  these  boxes  and  see  if  you 
recognize  any  of  those?" 

(Showing  witness  box.) 

"A.     I  saw  that  in  Lingg's  room. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  it  there  at  the  house  before  it  was 
taken  to  the  station? 

"  A.  I  saw  those  lead  pipes  laying  between  Lingg's 
house,  the  house  Lingg  lived  in,  and  the  next  house  to  it, 
in  a  small  gangway  there. 

JACOB  LOWENSTEIN,  a  police  officer  (K,  444),  was 
present  at  the  time  of  Lingg's  arrest. 

"  Q.     How  did  you  get  into  the  room? 

"  A.  Went  around  the  back  way  from  the  front,  or 
went  at  the  back  door.  I  looked  in  the  window  and 
could  not  see  anybody.  The  next  thing  I  heard,  I  heard 


jumping  on  the  floor,  and  then  started  around  to  get 
around  to  him  and  broke  the  door  in.  When  I  got  around 
back  I  found  Lingg  on  Schuttler's  back. 

"  Q.     What  position  were  they  in  ? 

"  A.  Lingg  had  his  right  arm  over  Schuttler  and 
Schuttler  had  Lingg's  thumb  in  his  mouth.  Lingg  had 
his  left  hand  on  his  gun. 

"  Q.     What  do  you  mean  by  gun? 

"  A.  Revolver.  Schuttler  had  both  hands  hold  of  the 
revolver.  Found  them  in  that  position. 

"  Q.     What  took  place? 

"  A.     I  struck  him  with  a  little  cane  I  had. 

"  Q.     What  position  was  Schuttler  in  at  that  time? 

"  A.  He  was  stooped  over,  standing.  I  struck  Lingg 
in  the  ear  with  a  twenty-five  cent  cane  I  had  in  my  hand, 
and  it  did  not  have  any  effect  on  him,  and  so  I  dropped 
the  cane  on  the  floor  and  grabbed  him  by  the  left  arm,  by 
his  coat  sleeve.  He  jerked  away,  and  he  tore  the  sleeve 
all  the  way  up.  Then  I  grabbed  him  by  the  throat  and 
dragged  him  up  against  the  wall.  As  I  had  lost  my 
come-along,  I  asked  Schuttler  to  let  me  have  his.  I  had 
him  under  control.  He  said  he  would  not  allow  himself 
to  be  shackled.  I  told  him  he  had  to;  that  we  would 
have  to  take  him  along.  After  we  got  the  come-alongs 
on  him  we  took  him  to  the  Hinman  street  station.  He 
said  quite  frequently,  '  Shoot  me  right  here  before  I  will 
go  with  you.'  That  was  all  the  conversation  I  heard  him 
say — '  kill  me.'  On  the  way  from  the  Hinman  street  sta- 
tion to  the  Chicago  avenue  station  Officer  Schuttler  said 
to  him  on  the  wagon,  '  Lingg,  why  did  you  want  to  kill 
me?  We  ain't  such  bad  fellows.'  He  said:  'If  I  had 
killed  you  and  your  partner  and  put  a  bullet  through  my 
own  head  it  would  be  the  happiest  hour  of  my  life.' 

The  witness,  between  10  and  n  o'clock  of  the  7th 
of  May,  together  with  Officers  Whalen,  Stift,  Schuttler, 
Cushman  and  McCormick,  went  to  Lingg's  room  at 
Seliger's  house. 

"  We  went  to  the  house  and  found  nobody  there 
at  all;  looked  in  the  windows,  and  the  door  was 
locked,  and  finally  we  pushed  in  the  door  and  went 


252 

in.  The  first  thing  we  done  was  Officer  Whalen  looked 
through  the  house  to  see  if  there  was  anybody  in  the 
house.  He  came  by  the  front  door.  He  went  in,  ra'her, 
to  the  house  and  said  '  Nobody's  here.'  We  then  started 
to  search  the  house.  I  went  to  the  front  room  and  from 
there  to  a  little  bedroom  in  the  south-east  corner  of  the 
house  (the  room  identified  by  other  witnesses  as 
Lingg's).  There  was  a  bed  in  there  and  a  wash-stand 
and  trunk,  and,  I  think,  a  little  shelf  up  in  the  corner  with 
some  bottles  on  it.  I  looked  around  in  the  closet,  and 
the  first  thing  I  saw  I  saw  a  lot  of  shells  in  there  and  also 
some  loaded  cartridges.  Officer  Stift  came  in>  and  I  says, 
'  Here  is  some  shells.'  I  then  looked  around  on  the 
shelves  and  found  these  shells  on  the  floor.  I  found  some 
metal  and  also  some  lead. 

"  Q.  Look  at  those  articles  (indicating  a  box  containing 
shells)? 

"  A.     Those  are  the  shells  I  found. 

"  Q.     Where  did  you  find  them? 

"  A.     In  the  closet  of  Lingg's  roooK 

"  Q.     Aud  some  lead? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     What  else  did  you  find  there? 

''A.  I  found  some  lead,  some  babbitt  metal,  some 
sheets  of  lead. 

"  Q.     Any  of  the  lead  here  that  you  found? 

"  A.     I  found  that  (indicating). 

"  Q.     You  found  those  bolts? 

"  A.     I  found  those  bolts  in  the  wash-stand. 

"  Q.     What  do  you  mean  by  'in  the  wash-stand?7 

"  A.  There  is  a  wash-stand  standing  there  in  the 
room,  a  home-made  wash-stand  with  the  lids  up.  I 
raised  the  lid  up,  and  these  bolts  lay  in  the  top.  There 
was  no  bowl  in  there,  nothing  like  that. 

"  Q.     Look  at  these  pieces  of  metal  I  show  you? 

"  A.  I  found  this  metal  here.  I  found  them  after  I 
had  opened  the  trunk;  they  were  in  that  dinner-box. 

"  Q.     Found  them  where? 

"  A.  In  the  dinner-box,  with  some  dynamite  bombs, 
loaded. 

"  Q.     What  do  you  mean  by  a  dinner-box? 

"  A.     That  little  japau  box  there,  dinner-box. 


253 

"  Q.     This  box  (indicating)? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     What  did  you  find  in  that? 

"  A.     I  found  four  bombs. 

"  Q.     Round  or  long? 

**  A.     They  were  gas-pipe  bonds. 

"  Q.     At  that  time,  were  they  loaded? 

"  A.  Two  of  them  were  loaded;  the  two  in  the  bot- 
tom were  loaded. 

"  Q.     Is  that  one  of  them  (indicating)? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     The  charge  is  now  withdrawn? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     How  many  bombs  did  you  find  in  that  box? 

"  A.  When  I  first  opened  up  the  trunk  this  cover 
dropped,  dropped  down,  and  with  that  a  Remington  rifle 
fell  down  with  the  stock  off  it — as  I  was  raising  the  lid 
up  it  fell  down."  (Witness  identified  rifle.)  "It  was 
loaded  right  up  so  I  could  not  unload  it  right  there,  the 
pin  catched  a  little  bit,  and  my  command  was  to  unload 
it.  I  then  opened  the  trunk,  and  found  a  lot  of  papers 
and  books  in  the  top  of  the  trunk;  took  them  all  out  and 
put  them  in  the  bed,  and  found  that  little  dinner-box  with 
the  bombs  in  it.  I  took  them  out  in  the  other  room  and 
set  them  on  the  table,  and  told  Officer  Whalen  I  thought 
I  had  found  some  dynamite,  which  he  should  take  down 
to  the  station,  which  he  did.  In  going  back  into  the 
room  I  found  in  a  gray  stocking  a  round  dynamite  bomb, 
in  taking  up  these  books  and  one  thing  or  another;  and 
as  I  got  back  the  first  thing  I  put  my  hand  on  was  a 
gray  stocking  with  a  dynamite  bomb  loaded.  I  then  left 
the  house  and  took  it  to  the  station,  and  reported  to  Capt. 
Schaack. 

"  Q.  Look  at  the  bomb  which  I  now  show  you 
(shows  witness  bomb)? 

"  A.     That  is  the  one. 

"  Q.     Where  did  you  find  that? 

"A.  I  found  that  on  a  bed  in  a  gray  stocking;  in 
taking  out  these  things  out  of  the  trunk  it  was  right 
among  those  articles,  and  it  rolled  down. 

"  Q.     Do  you  say  it  was  loaded  at  that  time? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir,  it  was.     I  took  it  to  the  station  to  Capt~ 


254 

Schaack,  the  East  Chicago  avenue  station,  and  I  told 
him  what  I  found,  and  he  told  me  to  go  back  to  the  house 
and  search  thoroughly.  I  went  back  to  the  house.  In 
the  meantime  we  had  left  Officer  Schuttler  there  on 
guard,  and  told  him  if  anybody  should  come  to  arrest 
them.  When  I  got  back  from  the  station  we  searched 
through  the  house  thoroughly. 

"  Q.     How  many  bombs  did  you  yourself  find? 

"  A.  I  found  five  in  all,  three  loaded  and  two  empty. 
Two  gas- pipes  loaded,  one  round  metal  bomb  loaded, 
and  two  round  empty  gas-pipes  with  two  pieces  of  solder. 
I  found  those  in  the  closet  of  Lingg's  room,  the  room  he 
occupied;  the  same  room  the  trunk  was  in. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  any  metal  there  yourself? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     With  pieces  of  lead? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     I  wish  you  would  point  those  out  to  the  jury. 

"  A.     I  found  all  these  here  (indicating). 

"  Q.     Where  did  you  find  that? 

"  A.     Between  the  two  houses. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  these  pieces? 

"  A.     I  found  these  on  the  floor  in  the  closet. 

"  Q.     What  was  the  condition  of  the  ground? 

•"  A.  It  had  been  dug  up  a  little.  Sand  had  been 
kind  of  thrown  over  it  a  little  bit;  covered  up  this  lead 
was. 

"  Q.     Where  did  you  find  this  piece  of  lead? 

"  A.     In  that  dinner-box. 

"  Q.     What  is  that? 

"  A.     That  is  solder. 

"  Q.  These  two  pieces  of  solder  you  found  in  that 
dinner-box? 

"  A.     In  that  dinner-box. 

"  Q.     These  other  pieces  you  found  where? 

"  A.  Those  other  pieces  were  found  in  the  closet,  or 
little  closet  press  you  might  call  it,  on  the  floor. 

"  Q.     Did  you  find  any  tools  there? 
•"  A.     I  found  two  hammers. 

"  Q.     Which  ones? 

"  A.  That  blast  hammer,  and  one  a  little  smaller;  one 
kind  of  pointed? 


255 

"  Q.     Is  that  it? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     What  else  in  the  shape  of  tools  did  you  find? 

"  A.  I  found  a  couple  of  iron  bits  and  drills.  *  *  * 
I  found  a  two-quart  pail  with  a  little  sawdust  in  the  bot- 
tom of  it — it  looked  like  sawdust.  I  found  out  it  was 
dynamite.  I  found  a  little  tin  quart  basin  under  the  bed 
with  a  little  piece  of  fuse  in  it,  and  also  some  sawdust  or 
dynamite.  I  did  not  know  at  the  time  it  was  dynamite, 
but  afterwards  learned  it  was.  Some  time  after  I  was 
looking  through  the  trunks  and  found  some  little  dynamite 
fuse  two  or  three  inches  long  in  the  bottom  of  the  trunk. 

"  Q.     What  was  the  condition  of  the  closet? 

"  A.  The  landlord  of  the  house  had  called  our  atten- 
tion, was  looking  around  there,  and  said  there  was  a  lot 
of  plaster,  mortar,  lying  out  back  of  the  yard.  We  then 
went  upstirs  and  looked  at  the  closet,  and  tore  the  base- 
board, which  had  been  freshly  nailed,  oft';  and  the  nails 
were  projecting  out  a  little  bit.  We  tore  them  away,  and 
put  our  hands  down  there,  and  I  spoke  up  and  says, 
'  There  is  where  the  plaster  comes  from  ' — it  was  tore  out 
all  the  way  around  the  base-board," 

On  cross-examination  witness  said  that  in  the  tin  dinner- 
box  he  found  four  bombs,  in  addition  to  which  were  two 
bars  of  soldier;  the  gas-pipe  bombs  were  about  six  inches 
long,  different  somewhat  in  size.  In  all,  he  found  three 
loaded  bombs  and  three  empty  ones.  Schuttler  found 
one  loaded  one. 

MICHAEL  SCHAACK,  captain  of  police  (K,  505),  had  a 
conversation  with  Lingg  at  the  time  he  was  brought  to 
the  station. 

"  First,  I  asked  him  his  name:  I  asked  him  where  he 
lived.  He  told  me  his  name;  he  told  me  he  had  lived  at 
442  Sedgwick  street.  I  asked  him  how  long  he  was  out 
of  work;  he  said  about  four  weeks.  I  asked  him  whether 
he  was  at  the  meeting  at  54  West  Lake  street  on  Monday 
night,  held  there  in  the  basement,  and  he  said  yes.  1 
asked  him  where  he  was  on  Tuesday  night,  May  4th.  He 


256 

said  he  was  at  home.  I  asked  him  if  he  was  at  home  all 
the  evening;  he  said  no,  that  he  and  a  man  by  the  name 
of  Seliger  had  been  on  Larrabee  street,  up  along  Larrabee 
street  quite  a  ways  north,  and  had  several  glasses  of  beer, 
and  from  there  he  went  home.  I  asked  him  then  about  mak- 
ing dynamite  b«mbs;  he  said  yes,  he  made  some.  I  asked 
him  what  he  made  them  for.  He  said  he  made  them  for 
to  use  them,  and  use  them  himself.  He  looked  very 
much  excited,  and  as  I  heard  from  the  officers  that  they 
had  trouble  with  him,  I  asked  him  what  made  him  be 
down  on  the  police.  He  said  that  he  had  reason  for  it. 
I  asked  him  what  reason  he  had.  He  said  that  they  had 
clubbed  him  out  of  McCormick's,  and  he  said  that  he  was 
down  on  capitalists,  and  he  found  fault  with  the  police; 
they  took  the  part  of  the  capitalists.  Then  I  asked  him 
again  about  using  those  dynamite  bombs,  why  it  wasn't 
more  proper  to  use  other  kinds  of  arms,  guns  and  so  on. 
His  answer  was,  what  is  the  use?  If  the  capitalists  turn 
out,  the  militia  and  the  police  force  and  their  Galling  guns 
and  cannons,  they  with  their  revolvers  couldn't  do  any- 
thing. And  therefore  they  adopted  these  bombs  and 
dynamite  so  they  could  fight  the  authorities  or  their 
officers.  He  said,  "  With  our  little  revolvers  we  couldn't 
do  anything."  I  asked  him  who  learned  him  to  make 
those  bombs — dynamite.  He  said  that  he  learned  it  in 
books,  scientific  books  of  warfare  published  by  Most,  of 
New  York.  I  asked  him  where  he  got  his  dynamite. 
He  said  he  got  it  on  Lake  street,  somewhere  near  Dear- 
born. I  asked  how  he  got  it.  He  said  he  went  in  and 
asked  for  a  couple  of  pounds  and  got  it,  and  bought  some 
fuse  and  caps,  and  told  me  what  he  paid  for  it,  too.  So  I 
asked  him  if  he  used  it  all  up.  He  said  no.  Then  I 
asked  him  then  about  making  bombs.  He  said  he  made 
bombs  of  gas-pipe  and  also  of  lead,  made  some  of  metal, 
or  metal  and  lead  mixed.  I  asked  him  where  he  got  the 
gas-pipe.  He  said,  find  it  on  the  street  sometimes.  I 
asked  him  how  he  got  the  lead.  He  said  about  the  same 
way.  I  asked  him  about  how  many  he  made.  He 
said  that  was  all  he  did  make,  what  we  found  in  his 
place. 

"  Q.     Did  you  show  those  to  him  at  the  time? 

"  A.     I  had  one  very  similar.     I  had  one  somewheres. 


257 

"  Q.  Can  you  tell  which  one  is  the  one  you  showed 
to  him? 

"  A.  It  is  a  bomb  which  was  found  by  the  firemen,  I 
think. 

#**#** 

"  Q.     Were  they  round  bombs? 

"  A.     One  was  a  round  one,  and  two  long  ones. 

"  Q.  What  other  conversation  did  you  have  with  him, 
if  any,  that  you  can  remember  about? 

"  A.  He  said  that  he  made  those  bombs,  and  he 
meant  to  use  them,  too,  as  I  said  before.  Then  Mrs. 
Seliger,  we  put  her  face  to  face  with  him  up  in  the  office, 
and  she  accused  him  right  there,  that  he  was  making 
bombs;  commenced  making  bombs  a  few  weeks  after  he 
came  to  their  house.  We  were  satisfied  he  made  more 
than  that,  and  he  didn't  say  anything  or  answer  anything 
to  it;  looked  at  the  woman,  and  he  didn't  say  anything. 
And  also  there  was  a  man  arrested  by  the  name  of  John 
Thielen,  and  Thielen  faced  him  right  in  the  same  office, 
and  from  Thielen  we  had  recovered  two  cigar  boxes  full 
of  dynamite,  and  two  of  those  bombs.  I  had  the  dyna- 
mite right  there. 

"  Q.  Were  those  the  bombs,  and  was  that  the  dyn- 
amite (showing  witness)  which  Officer  Hoffman  brought 
to  you? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir;  it  has  been  shown  here  in  court — yes, 
sir;  and  I  told  him:  '  Now,' says  I,  'this  man  Thielen 
here  says  that  you  gave  him  this  May  the  4th.  What  do 
you  say  to  it?  '  '  Well,'  he  says,  '  that  is  so,'  and  at  the 
same  time  Lingg  looked  right  square  at  Thielen  and 
shook  his  head  for  him  to  keep  still.  Thielen  said  to 
him, '  Never  mind,  you  might  as  well  tell  it;  it  is  all  out  any- 
how; they  know  it  all.'  And  that  is  about  the 
last  of  that  conversation.  *  *  *  When  we 
discovered  the  lead  and  everything,  the  officers  telephoned 
to  me,  and  1  told  them  to  bring  everything  down  belong- 
ing to  Lingg,  and  everything  that  was  in  his  room.  This 
trunk  here  (indicating  large  trunk)  was  brought  down, 
and  in  the  evening  I  was  alone  for  a  little  while  in  the 
office,  and  I  opened  it  and  looked  through  it;  and  I  saw 
here  (indicating  some  part  of  the  inside  of  the  trunk)  — 
I  discovered  here  there  was  something  what  was  not 


258 

right,  and  I  took  a  chisel  and  I  took  all  this  stuff  off  here, 
and  there  is  a  false  bottom  here,  and  in  there  I  found  two 
long  cartridges  of  dynamite  and  some  fuse  already  fixed — 
that  is,  those  fuse  about  four  inches  long  and  caps.  A 
big  coil  of  fuse.  That  big  coil  of  fuse  in  that  box  there 
(indicating). 

"  Q.  Let  me  ask  you,  when  this  trunk  came  here, 
came  down,  were  these  pieces,  cleats,  whatever  you  call 
them,  nailed  on  there  (indicating  the  inside  of  the  trunk)? 

"  A.  Oh,  yes.  I  took  them  off,  as  I  stated.  I  asked 
him  if  that  was  the  dynamite  he  used  in  his  bombs,  the 
bombs  he  professed  he  built.  He  said  yes;  and  by  ex- 
amining it,  the  dynamite  he  had;  this  (indicating)  is  only 
sawdust,  something  like  this.  And  the  dynamite  I  found 
in  the  bombs  is  like  that  (indicating  small  box);  that  is  the 
dynamite,  or  the  same  what  has  been  in  the  bombs;  that 
I  took  out  of  one  of  the  bombs  which  I  afterwards  ex- 
ploded. 

"  Q.  The  dynamite  that  is  done  up  in  the  package  is 
lighter  (in  color)  ? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir.  That  is  the  color  of  it.  That  is  the 
way  it  is  done  up,  too,  like  this  here  (indicating  cartridge), 
and  that  was  found  in  his  bombs,  except  one  bomb,  was 
black.  I  got  three  kinds  of  dynamite;  what  the  officer 
swore,  the  dynamite  he  gave  to  Lehmann;  it  come  back 
to  me,  that  gallon  box;  that  is  black;  it  looks  like  char- 
coal, is  used  for  it,  and  the  dynamite  in  the  trunk  here  is 
white,  like  that  (indicating),  and  the  dynamite  in  most  of 
those  bombs  is  all  of  this  (the  dark-colored);  the  same  as 
he  gave  Thielen,  those  two  boxes.  I  asked  him  also  if 
he  had  any  knowledge  of  what  strength  they  had;  he 
says  yes;  he  had  tried  those  bombs,  he  had  tried  a  round 
one  and  tried  a  long  one.  He  told  me  he  took  a  long  one 
and  wenf  out  in  the  open  air,  out  here  somewhere  north, 
and  he  tried  one  and  they  worked  well.  He  says  he  put 
one  right  in  the  crotch  of  a  tree  and  slit  it  all  up.  I  asked 
him  if  he  knew  Spies;  he  said  yes.  I  asked  him  how 
long  he  had  known  him;  he  said  for  some  time;  and  I 
asked  him  it  he  ever  was  over  to  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung 
office;  he  said  yes,  he  had  been  there  about  five  times, 
that  he  had  been  at  a  meeting  and  brought  a  report  of 
the  meeting,  and  so  on.  Then  I  asked  that  question,  how 


259 

long  he  was  a  socialist;  he  didn't  make  any  particular 
answer;  he  said  that  he  was  a  socialist  ever  since  he  could 
think.  *  *  * 

"  When  Engel  was  brought  in,  the  first  conversation  I 
had  with  him  was  very  short.  I  asked  him  where  he 
lived,  and  so  on;  he  told  me.  I  asked  him  where  he  was 
on  the  3d  of  May,  or  Monday.  He  said  he  worked  for 
a  friend,  and  he  was  doing  some  fresco  work  for  him,  a 
friend  of  the  name  of  Koch,  somewhere  out  west,  some- 
where there.  And  I  asked  him  if  he  went  to  the  meeting 
that  night;  he  said  yes,  he  went  to  54  West  Lake  street, 
to  that  meeting,  but  was  only  there  a  little  while.  I 
asked  him  if  he  made  a  speech  there;  he  says  no,  he  did 
not;  he  said  he  didn't  have  anything  to  say  to  anybody, 
and  that  nobody  authorized  him  to  make  a  speech,  and 
from  there  he  went  home.  Then  a  few  days  after,  a  day 
or  two,  probably  two  days,  his  wife  and  daughter  came 
there;  they  wanted  to  see  him,  and  they  didn't  see  him 
until  this  day  I  had  his  wife  in  the  office  and  I 
sent  for  him.  And  his  wife  gave  him  a  bouguet 
of  flowers,  and  all  at  once  he  broke  out  and  he 
says,  "  What  good  are  those  flowers  to  me?"  He  says, 
'  They  got  me  down  here  in  a  dark  cell,'  and  claimed  to 
be  abused,  and  so  on." 

The  captain  then  gave  directions  for  changing  his  cell. 

"  He  (Engel)  was  terribly  excited,  and  his  wife  said  to 
him  then;  she  says,  'Papa,  do  you  see  now  what  trouble 
you  got  yourself  into  ?  '  And  his  answer  was — he  said, 
'  Mamma,  I  can't  help  it.'  I  said  to  him,  «  Now,  why 
don't  you  stop  that  nonsense  ?  You  see  how 
bad  your  wife  feels?'  'Well,'  he  says,  'I  prom- 
ised my  wife  so  many  time?  that  I  would  stop  this 
anarchism  or  socialism  business,  but  I  can't  stop  it.' 
He  says, '  What  is  in  me  has  got  to  come  out;  I  can't  help 
it;  that  I  am  so  gifted  with  this  eloquence' — the  way  he 
expressed  himself,  and  he  says,  '  It  is  a  curse,  it  has  been  a 
curse  to  a  good  many  other  men,  what  has  been  so  pos- 
sessed,' and  he  says,  '  A  good  many  men  have  suffered  al- 
ready for  the  same  cause,  and  I  am  willing  to  suffer  and  I 
will  stand  it  like  a  man.'  He  also  spoke  of  a  woman 
once  taking  a  leading  part  in  this  kind  of  business,  the 
anarchists. 


260 

"  Q.     What  name  did  he  mention? 

"  A.  I  think  Louise  Michel.  He  says  she  was  a  great 
woman,  and  she  had  suffered  for  the  cause  and  he  was 
willing  to  do  the  same  thing.  I  asked  him  where  he  was 
at  the  evening  of  the  4th.  He  said  he  was  home  lay- 
ing on  the  lounge.  That  is  about  all  the  conversation  I 
had  with  him." 

The  captain  then  described  various  experiments  which 
he  had  made  with  dynamite  traced  in  the  evidence  to 
Lingg,  and  which  experiments  show  that  the  dynamite  of 
the  darker  color  was  more  powerful  than  the  lighter;  he 
also  identified  the  different  bombs  and  articles  from  which 
samples  had  been  taken  and  sent  to  Prof.  Haines  to  be  ex- 
amined by  him. 

"  Q.  Did  Lingg  say  anything  to  you  about  the  pur- 
pose for  which  he  was  making  the  bombs? 

"  A.  He  said  that  the  police  would  come  with  their 
Gatling  guns  and  the  militia  and  that  he  would  fight  them 
with  them  bombs. 

"  Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  anything  was  said 
about  revolution  or  not? 

"  A.  And  there  would  be  very  likely  revolution 
through  this  workingmen's  trouble.  Furthermore,  about 
Lingg,  I  forgot,  as  we  are  telling  now,  there  was  a 
sachel  I  brought  from  Neff's  place;  Mr.  Thielen  was 
present.  The  sachel,  it  was  filled  with  them  bombs,  and 
I  asked  Lingg  if  he  brought  that  sachel  there.  He  said 
he  saw  a  sachel;  I  described  it  to  him;  he  said,  'Yes, 
that  was  the  sachel  he  saw.'  I  asked  him  what  be- 
came of  it?  He  says  he  didn't  know.  He  saw  it  stand 
there  when  he  left,  and  that  was  the  last  he  saw  of  it. 

"•  Q.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  him  about  the  molds 
for  making  bombs — about  who  made  the  molds? 

"  A.  I  asked  him  where  he  got  the  molds  to  make 
these  bombs.  He  said  he  made  them  himself;  he  made 
them  of  clay.  And  I  asked  him  how  often  they  could  be 
used  to  cast  in;  he  says,  only  about  twice,  then  they 
would  crackle  to  pieces. 

"  Q.  Did  you  ask  him  anything  about  the  Revenge 
circular? 


26l 

"  A.  Yes.  He  said  he  saw  that  on  the  west  side;  I 
believe  71  West  Lake  street. 

"  Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  his  personal  appear- 
ance, his  hair  or  his  whiskers? 

"  A.  Yes;  when  we  had  a  picture  of  him  I  had 
several  of  them  struck  off  to  be  sent  out,  and  there  is 
where  he  had  the  light  chin-whiskers  and  mustache,  and 
when  he  was  brought  in — and  also  the  pictures  showed 
he  had  quite  a  lot  of  hair — when  he  was  brought  in  his  hair 
was  pretty  short  and  he  was  clean  shaved.  I  asked  him 
when  he  done  that.  He  said  on  or  about  the  7th  of  May. 

"  Q.  Did  you  ask  him  anything  about  whether  any- 
body had  been  in  his  room  on  the  4th  of  May? 

"  A.  That  is  what  I  learned— there  were  other  parties, 
and  I  asked  him  if  he  could  tell  me  who  they  were.  I  had 
learned  some  of  their  names,  and  I  wanted  to  know  all  of 
them.  He  said  there  had  been  several  persons  there  that 
afternoon,  probably  six  or  more,  and  among  those  persons 
was  the  two  Lehmanns,  so  far  as  he  knew." 

On  cross-examination  the  witness  testified: 

"  Q.  What  Lingg  said  to  you,  Captain,  was  this  sub- 
stantially, was  it  not — if  not  in  words,  in  substance — that 
the  time  was  coming  when  there  would  be  a  contest  be- 
tween the  labor  classes  on  one  side  and  the  police  and 
the  militia,  with  their  Gatling  guns,  on  the  other,  and  that 
he  was  making  these  bombs  to  be  used  when  that  time 
came? 

"A.  That  is  about  it,  but  he  said  that  the  time  was 
there  now,  with  those  working  troubles. 

"  Q.  Did  he  say  anything  about  any  particular  time 
that  he  was  going  to  use  them — that  is,  the  date? 

"  A.     No,  sir;  no  date;  no,  sir. 

"  Q.  You  never  drew  from  him  the  fact  that  he  in- 
tended to  go  to  the  Haymarket  meeting,  or  anything  of 
that  kind,  on  that  occasion? 

"  A.  No;  he  said  he  wasn't  there.  He  said  he  was 
on  Larrabee  street." 

JOHN  STIFT,  a  police  officer  (K,  619),  went  to  the 
house  of  the  defendant  Neebe  on  Friday,  the  7th  of  May, 
and  found  there  a  38-caliber  Colt's  pistol,  sword,  breech- 


262 

loading  gun,  and  a  red  flag;  five  chambers  of  the  revolver 
were  fired;  one  was  loaded  with  a  cartridge;  one  had  a 
shell  in  it. 

Mrs.  JOHANNA  SULLIVAN,  living  at  37  Sigel  street,  tes- 
tified as  follows  (J,  364): 

"  Q.  Do  you  remember,  after  the  4th  of  May  last,  of 
finding  any  bombs  near  your  house? 

"  A.  Not  any  bombs,  but  I  found  two  pipes;  I  don't 
know  what  they  contained.  I  accidentally  went  there. 

"  Q.  Two?     What  kind  of  pipes  were  they? 

"  A.  About  that  length  (indicating  about  six  inches). 

The  two  that  I  saw. 

"  Q.  Iron  pipes? 

"  A.  I  guess  so. 

"  Q.  Where  did  you  find  them? 

"  A.  Right  under  the  sidewalk. 

"  Q.  Under  the  sidewalk? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir;  the  ends  were  sticking  out. 

"  Q.  Oh,  the  ends  were  sticking  out  towards  the 
street  ? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  And  you  live  right  opposite  there? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  You  gave  those  to — ? 

«  A.  To  Mrs.  Miller. 

"  Q.  To  Mr.  Miller  or  Mrs.  Miller? 

"  A.  Yes,  Mrs.  Miller. 

"  Q.  These  are  the  ones  that  Mr.  Miller  testified  to 
this  morning? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  That  is  Mr.  Miller,  the  fireman? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  Did  you  find  anything  else  there? 

"  A.  No,  sir;  nothing  else. 

GEORGE  N.  MILLER,  lieutenant  on  fire  department, 
testified  (J,  287): 

"  Did  you  at  at  any  time  after  the  4th  of  May  last  find 
any  dynamite  bombs  at  any  place  or  locality? 


263 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     Describe  where  and  what  you  found? 

"  A.     I  found  two  pipe  bombs  and  a  round  bomb. 

"  Q.     Two  gas-pipe  bombs? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     And  a  round  bomb? 

«'  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  Describe  them  as  near  as  you  can,  so  that  these 
gentlemen  may  understand  what  they  were? 

"  A.  One  was  about  a  two-inch  pipe,  about  six  inches 
long,  and  the  other  one  about  an  inch  and  a  half  pipe,  and 
it  was  about  eight  inches  long;  and  the  other  one  was  a 
round  bomb  with  a  bolt  through  it.  *  *  * 

"  Q.     Describe  the  round  bomb? 

"  A.  It  was  a  leaden  bomb;  it  was  made  in  two  pieces 
with  a  bolt  through  it. 

"  Q.     What  did  you  do  with  it? 

"  A.     I  took  them  to  Chicago  avenue  station. 

"  Q.     Gave  them  to  Capt.  Schaack? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir.     There  were  two  fuses  there,  too. 

"  Q.     Besides  these  bombs  what  else  did  you  find? 

"  A.     Two  fuse. 

"  Q.  Now,  what  was  the  shape  and  length  of  that 
fuse,  and  what  did  it  look  like?  Describe  it? 

"  A.  Well,  one  fuse  had  a  cap  on  the  end,  and  it  was 
about  five  inches  long.  But  the  other  one  did  not  have 
no  cap  on. 

"  Q.     About  the  same  length? 

"  A.     About  the  same  length. 

"  Q.  What  did  you  do  with  that  fuse  and  those  three 
bombs? 

"  A.     I  took  them  to  the  Chicago  avenue  station. 

"  Q.     Gave  them  to  Capt.  Schaack? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  Now,  give  correctly  the  description  of  the  place 
from  which  you  took  them — where  you  found  them? 

"  A.  Well,  the  two  gas-pipes,  I  did  not  pick  them  up 
myself;  my  wife  picked  them  up  and  brought  them  in  to 
me  as  I  was  at  breakfast,  and  she  said — 

"  Q.     After  she  did  speak  to  you,  what  did  you  do? 

"  A.  Well,  I  took  them  down  to  the  station.  In  about 
an  hour  afterwards  the  children  were  playing  around 


264 

outside  there.  And  there  was  something  in  under  the 
sidewalk,  and  they  called  me.  I  was  asleep  at  home,  and 
I  got  up  and  went  out  there,  and  I  got  down  on  my  knees 
and  I  saw  this  round  bomb  under  the  sidewalk,  and  I  got 
down  and  got  it  out. 

"  Q.  Where  is  your  house?  This  is  in  front  of  your 
house,  was  it? 

"  A.  There  are  steps  leads  up  to  our  sidewalk.  Our 
sidewalk  is  elevated  higher  than  the  rest,  about  three  and 
a  half  feet,  and  it  was  underneath  the  sidewalk,  under- 
neath the  stairs. 

"  Q.  Between  the  curb  and  the  lot  line,  between  the 
curb  and  the  house? 

"  A.  Well,  it  was  not  in  front  of  our  place;  it  was  on 
the  next  lot — that  would  bring  it,  because  our  sidewalk  is 
on  the  line,  and  it  is  elevated  higher.  *  *  * 

"  Q.     What  street  is  that  that  you  live  on? 

"  A.     On  Sigel  street. 

"  Q.     What  number  of  the  street? 

"  A.     I  live  at  number  39. 

"  Q.  Now,  in  reference  to  No.  39  Sigel  street,  this 
would  be  what — 37  or  41? 

"A.     37." 

The  bombs  referred  to  by  the  witnesses  Miller  and 
Sullivan  are  the  bombs  which  were  deposited  by  L-ingg 
and  Seliger  on  their  way  home,  after  leaving  Neff's 
Hall  the  second  time. 

MICHAEL  HOFFMAN  (K,  497),  a  police  officer,  testified 
that  he  had  found  in  all  thirteen  bombs,  nine  round  ones  and 
four  long  ones;  that  at  the  corner  of  Clyde  and  Clybourn 
avenues  at  Ogden  avenue,  under  the  sidewalk,  he  found 
two  that  were  empty  and  one  that  was  loaded,  which  he 
gave  to  Capt.  Schaack.  That  he  got  at  the  same  time 
two  coils  of  fuse  and  a  can  of  dynamite  and  a  box  of  caps. 
They  were  the  bombs  referred  to  in  the  testimony  of 
Gustav  Lehman,  who  was  present  with  him  at  the  time 
he  got  them,  and  that  he  found  at  the  house  of  Thielen 


265 

two  loaded  bombs  and  two  cigar  boxes  full  of  dynamite,  a 
rifle,  a  revolver  and  two  boxes  of  cartridges.  The  re- 
volver and  box  of  cartridges  was  buried  under  the  floor 
of  the  coal-shed,  and  the  dynamite  and  rifle  and  the  other 
box  of  cartridges  buried  under  the  house.  The  bombs 
were  the  ones  referred  to  by  Capt.  Schaack  in  his  testi- 
mony as  having  been  shown  to  Lingg,  which  he  admitted 
having  given  to  Thielen. 

THOMAS  MC*NAMARA  (K,  581)  testified  that  on  the 
23d  day  of  May,  under  the  sidewalk  on  the  Blooming- 
dale  road  and  Robey  street,  he  found  thirty-one  gas-pipe 
bombs — thirty  loaded  and  one  empty.  The  loaded  ones 
had  the  caps  and  fuse.  They  were  in  an  oilcloth.  They 
were  put  on  the  ground  under  the  sidewalk;  there  were 
also  three  coils  of  fuse  and  two  boxes  of  dynamite  caps. 
The  place  where  they  were  was  about  four  blocks  from 
Wicker  Park. 

FREDERICK  DREWS  (K,  553)  testified  that  on  the  2d 
of  June  he  tore  up  the  sidewalk  in  front  of  his  place,  351 
Paulina  street,  for  the  purpose  of  repairing  it;  that  he 
found  there  four  cans  which  he  placed  inside  of  his  lot 
and  then  notified  Capt.  Schaack  about  them;  that  they 
were  filled  with  some  kind  of  explosive  substance. 

MICHAEL  WHALEN  (K,  555),  a  police  officer,  testified 
that  he  took  those  cans  from  the  yard  at  351  Paulina 
street;  that  the  yard  is  distant,  he  thinks,  from  half  a 
mile  to  a  mile  from  Wicker  Park.  The  cans  were  filled 
with  fluid. 

DANIEL  COUGHLIN  (K,  568),  a  police  officer,  testified 
that  he  experimented  with  one  of  the  cans;  that  he  ex- 
ploded it  by  lighting  the  fuse,  and  the  material  inside  was 


266 

thrown  four  or  five  feet  and  made  a  blaze  three  or  four 
feet  high.  That  it  burned  from  three  to  five  minutes. 
(A  photograph  of  one  of  the  cans  appears  in  People's 
Exhibit  131.) 

Thus  far  we  have  called  attention  only  to  those  portions 
of  the  evidence  which  appear  in  the  record,  about  which 
there  is  practically  no  dispute.  The  only  portion  about 
which  there  is  any  disagreement  is  as  to  the  conversation 
between  Spies  and  Wilkinson.  Spies  says  that  the  con- 
versation did  not  refer  particularly  or  specifically  to  the 
city  of  Chicago,  but  was  simply  a  general  conversation 
in  regard  to  the  science  of  revolutionary  warfare,  and 
some  of  the  statements  made  by  Wilkinson  are  denied  by 
him. 

Aside  from  that,  the  foregoing  evidence  is  without  de- 
nial, stands 'uncontradicted  and  is  practically  admitted  by 
by  the  defense. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  upon  an  examination  of  this  evi- 
dence that  the  fact  of  a  conspiracy  to  overthrow  the  ex- 
isting order  of  society  stands  proven  overwhelmingly,  and 
that  not  even  an  attempt  is  made  to  dispute  it;  also,  that 
the  defendants  were  members  of  that  conspiracy,  and  that 
the  time  had  been  fixed  for  its  culmination  and  all  prepa- 
rations made  for  carrying  it  into  effect. 

The  points  in  the  evidence  which  are  seriously  disputed 
are  wholly  in  regard  to  some  of  the  transactions  at  the 
Haymarket. 


267 


JEFFERSON 


ST. 


W 

H 


1  = 


CLINTON 


ST. 


268 


VIII. 

MATTERS  ABOUT  WHICH   THERE  Is  A    CONFLICT  IN  THE 
EVIDENCE. 

The  questions  about  which  there  is  a  serious  conflict  in 
the  evidence  are: 

First.     Did  the  crowd  fire  first? 

Second.     Threats  as  the  police  approached. 

Third.     Did  Fielden  fire  from  behind  the  wagon? 

Fourth.     Who  threw  the  bomb,  and    the    point    from 
which  it  was  thrown? 

The  police  marched  in  the  following  order   (I,  428) : 

North. 

Inspector  Bonfield.          Capt.  Ward. 
Lieut.  Quinn's  Lieut.  Steele's 

Company.  Company. 

Lieut.  Stanton's  Lieut.  Bowler's 

Company.  Company. 

Lieut.  Hubbard's  Company. 

Lieut.  Penzen's  Lieut.  Beard's 

Company.  Company. 

South. 


(1.)     DID  THE   CROWD  FIRE  FIRST? 

JOHN  BONFIELD,  who  as  inspector  was  in  charge  of  the 
police  that  night,  testifies  (I,  18)  that  the  force  numbered 
about  180  men;  the  police  left  the  station  between  10  and 
half-past  10,  marched  north  on  Desplaines  street,  Capt. 
Ward  and  himself  at  the  head  of  the  two  first  compa- 
nies; Lieut.  Steele  and  his  company  were  on  the  right 
and  Lieut.  Quinn  on  the  left;  of  the  next  two  companies 
the  one  on  the  right  was  Lieut.  Bowler's,  that  on  the  left 


269 

Lieut.  Stanton's;  then  the  company  of  Lieut.  Hubbard 
came  next,  formed  in  single  line,  and  the  companies  of 
Penzen  and  Beard  brought  up  the  rear,  who  were  or- 
dered to  stop  at  Randolph  street  and  face  to  the  right 
and  left. 

"  The  orders  were  that  no  man  should  draw  a  weapon 
or  commit  any  act,  fire  or  strike  anybody,  until  he  re- 
ceived positive  orders  from  his  commanding  officer. 
Those  orders  were  given  partly  to  the  men  and  to  each 
commanding  officer  individually,  with  instructions  to  re- 
port it  to  his  men  individually;  and  as  to  my  personal 
knowledge  of  how  the  men  were,  I  walked  along  the  lines 
while  the  men  were  formed,  before  they  turned  into  Des- 
plaines  street,  and  each  officer  was  dressed  in  full  uniform 
with  his  coat  buttoned  up  to  the  throat  and  his  club  and 
belt  on,  and  his  club  in  the  holder  on  the  side.  I  had  no 
belt  and  carried  a  club  in  my  hand  myself,  and  Capt. 
Ward  was  with  me  in  front,  and  we  each  had  our  batons 
in  our  hands,  pistols  in  our  pockets.  As  we  approached 
the  truck,  or  about  that  point  (indicating),  there  was  a 
person  speaking  from  the  truck,  and  Capt.  Ward  turned 
slightly  to  his  right  and  gave  the  statutory  order  to  dis- 
perse in  the  name  of  the  people.  The  language  was:  'I 
command  you  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Illinois  to  immediately  and  peaceably  disperse,'  and  as  he 
repeated  those  words — I  think  those  are  the  exact  words 
used — he  turned  slightly  to  the  right  and  left  and  said: 
'  I  command  you  and  you  to  assist.'  Almost  instantly,  or 
just  before  that,  Mr.  Fielden,  as  I  recognized  afterwards, 
was  standing  on  the  truck  speaking  as  we  approached, 
and  as  Capt.  Ward  gave  the  command  Fielden  turned  so 
as  to  face  the  captain  and  myself  and  stepped  off  from 
the  end  of  the  truck  and  turned  to  go  towards 
the  sidewalk,  and  as  he  turned  he  said  in  a 
rather  loud  tone  of  voice,  '  We  are  peaceable.'  Almost 
instantly  after  that  remark  was  repeated  I  heard  from  be- 
hind me  a  hissing  sound.  *  *  *  which  was  followed 
in  a  second  or  two  by  a  terrific  explosion.  To  go  back  a 
little,  as  we  came  up  the  street  the  crowd  parted,  kind  of 
peculiar  to  my  idea;  some  portions  of  them  run  on 
Desplaines  street  towards  Lake,  but  the  greater  portion  of 


270 

them  fell  back  to  each  sidewalk,  to  the  right  and  left  and 
partly  lapped  back  to  our  flanks;  almost  instantly  after  the 
explosion,  or  whatever  it  was,  the  firing  Jrom  the  front  and 
from  both  sides  poured  in  right  on  us.  I  should  judge 
there  were  from  seventy-five  to  one  hundred  pistol  shots 
right  in  our  front  and  both  flanks  almost  instantly  after 
the  explosion  of  the  bomb.  *  *  *  from  the  crowd 
standing  directly  in  front  and  from  both  flanks  of  us.  Those 
shots  and  the  explosion  were  before  there  was  a  word 
spoken  or  a  shot  fired  by  any  officer — a  word  spoken  by 
any  officer  except  the  statutory  command  given  by  Capt. 
Ward  and  my  command  to  the  men  to  halt.  *  *  *  It 
was  but  a  few  seconds;  there  was  not  but  just  time  enough 
for  the  men  to  get  their  revolvers  out  when  the  police 
commenced  firing,  but  there  was  an  interval  of  a  few 
seconds  between  the  firing  by  the  crowd  and  the  return 
fire  by  the  police.  I  was  standing  there  when  the  ex- 
plosion occurred,  perhaps  two  or  three  paces  in  front  of 
the  first  column  of  men;  on  hearing  the  explosion  I 
turned  around  quickly  and  I  saw  the  second  two  lines  of 
men,  almost  all  of  the  men,  shrink  to  the  ground.  There 
were  a  great  many  men  lying  there.  *  *  *  //  would 
be  hard  to  make  an  accurate  statement,  but  I  should  think 
1  would  be  very  safe  in  saying  that  it  was  not  less  than  one 
hundred  (not  less  than  one  hundred  shots  that  were  fired 
by  the  crowd  before  the  police  fired)." 

He  says  (page  44)  that  at  the  time  the  police  were 
halted  the  front  rank  of  the  first  division  was  not  quite  up 
to  the  north  line  of  Crane's  alley;  that  Capt.  Ward  was 
within  six  feet  of  the  wagon  upon  which  the  speaker  stood. 

Lieut.  STEELE testified  (1, 169)  that  Capt.  Ward  "  went 
"around  to  the  front,  or  stepped  up;  he  was  in  front  then 
"and  commanded  the  speakers  to  disperse  in  the  name  of 
"  the  people  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  called  on  the  citi- 
zens present  to  assist  him  in  dispersing  them,  and  at  that 
"  time — well,  it  might  have  been  two  or  three  seconds— 
"  the  shell  was  thrown  in  the  rear  or  on  the  left  of  my 
"company,  and  it  exploded  there;  there  was  then  also  a 


271 

"smaller  report  in  the  rear  of  me  like  a  large  pistol  shot, 
"  right  almost  behind  me,  and  at  that  time  they  fired 
"  immediately  into  us  almost. 

"  Q.     Who  fired  immediately  into  you? 

"  A.  The  crowd  in  front  of  us,  on  the  sides  and  in  the 
front. 

"  Q.     On  the  sides  of  the  street — on  the  sidewalk? 

"  A.  Yes;  and  as  soon  as  it  was  done  the  firing  was 
returned  by  myself  and  the  men. 

"  Q.  Who  fired  first,  the  -people  in  the  crowd  on  the 
streets  in  front  of  you,  or  the  -police  ? 

"  A.      The  people  in  front  and  on  the  side  of  us. 

"  Q.  With  reference  to  the  explosion  of  the  bomb, 
when  did  the  firing  begin? 

"  A.     Right  after  that. 

"  Q.  What  interval  of  time,  if  you  can  measure  it  by 
time? 

"  A.  Well,  it  could  not  have  been  more  than  two  or 
three  seconds." 

He  says  (page  174)  that  as  the  police  got  north  of  Ran- 
dolph street  the  crowd  separated  to  the  right  and  to  the 
left. 

CAPT.  WARD  testified  (I,  430) : 

"  Q.     How  were  your  men  armed  ? 

"  A.     With  clubs  and  pistols. 

"  Q.     Where  were  their  clubs  and  pistols? 

"  A.  They  were  in  the  belts  and  sockets — clubs— 
and  pistols  in  their  pockets. 

"  Q.  What  was  the  first  thing  'that  happened  after 
Fielden  said  '  We  are  peaceable '  r1 

"  A.  A  few  seconds  after  he  said  '  We  are  peaceable  ' 
I  heard  the  explosion  in  my  rear. 

"  Q.     What  happened  then? 

"  A.  I  turned  and  looked  to  see,  and  pistol  firing 
began  from  the  front  and  on  both  sides  of  the  street. 

"  Q.      Was  the  pistol  firing  begun  by  the  crowd? 

"  A.  By  the  crowd,  yes;  it  came  from  in  front  of  us 
and  on  each  side  of  the  street  immediately  afterwards; 
there  was  quite  a  number  of  them,  a  great  many;  quite  a 
scattering  volley. 


272 

"  Q.  Where  -was  that  volley  ?  where  did  it  come  from  ? 
was  it  general? 

"A.  In  front  and  on  both  sides  of  the  street;  from 
the  wagon  and  rear  of  it;  that  way  (indicating};  saw  the 
Hashes. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  anybody  fire — that  is,  did  you  rec- 
ognize anybody? 

"  A.     I  did  not  recognize  anybody. 

•'  Q.     What  happened  then? 

"  A.  Then  the  police  began  firing  and  we  charged 
into  the  alley — into  Crane's  alley  and  north  on  Desplaines 
street." 

Officer  JOHN  WESSLER  testified  (I,  251): 

"I  saw  it  flying  through  the  air;  it  struck  and  it  laid 
there  probably  a  couple  of  seconds  when  it  exploded; 
just  as  it  got  exploded  there  was  about  a  hundred  shots; 
/  won't  say  exactly,  but  there  was  a  volley  of  shots  fired 
into  us  by  the  opposite  party. 

"  Q.     By  the  crowd  around? 

"  A.  Tes.  So  they  shot  into  us  and  our  men  fell  by 
our  sides.  Lieut.  Bowler  told  us  then  to  draw  our  re- 
volvers and  shoot  and  kill  every  one  we  met — shoot  and 
kill.  I  drew  my  revolver  and  I  ran  north. 

PETER  FOLEY,  a  police  officer,  testified  (I,  268): 

"  Q.  In  reference  to  the  explosion  of  the  shell,  when 
were  the  shots  fired? 

"  A.  Well,  the  report  had  not  died  away  when  the 
shots  were  fired. 

"  Q.     From  whom  did  the  shots  come? 

"  A.  from  the  parties  that  were  on  the  sidewalk  and 
in  front  of  us. 

"  Q.     What  did  you  do? 

"  A.  I  got  a  command  from  the  lieutenant  to  draw- 
revolvers,  and  I  shot. 

PAUL  C.  HULL,  a  newspaper  reporter,  testified  (K, 
122): 

"  Q.  At  the  time  the  bomb  exploded  had  there  been 
any  firing? 


273 

'  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  After  the  bomb  exploded,  did  the  firing  begin? 

'A.  Yes;  it  did. 

'  Q.  From  whom? 

*  A.  From  the  crowd. 

'Q.  Before  the  police  fired? 

'A.     Before  the  police  fired. 
#  *  **#  *  *  * 

"  Q.  What  was  the  effect  upon  the  police  of  the  ex- 
plosion of  that  bomb? 

"  A.  It  seemed  to  level  to  the  ground  the  second  and 
third  divisions  of  police.  My  eye  followed  the  spark  of 
the  bomb  as  it  fell  to  the  ground.  I  did  not  see  the  great 
body  of  the  police,  except  the  two  columns  which  bounded 
either  side  of  the  bomb.  It  seemed  to  throw  them  all  to 
the  ground.  At  almost  the  same  instant  there  was  a  rattling 
of  shot,  which  came  from  both  sides  of  the  street,  which  did 
not  come  from  the  police. 

GEORGE  W.  HUBBARD,  a  lieutenant  of  police,  testi- 
fied (J,  80) : 

"  It  (the  bomb)  immediately  exploded,  and,  as  far  as  I 
could  see,  the  entire  division  disappeared;  the  division  in 
front  of  me  all  disappeared,  except  the  two  ends,  which 
was  really  two-thirds  of  the  division;  they  went  down, 
but  a  great  many  of  them  got  up  again,  and,  of  course, 
got  up  in  kind  of  disorder,  and  then  I  flanked  the  left  of 
the  division. 

"  Q.  In  reference  to  that,  first,  was  there  any  firing 
before  that  bomb  was  thrown  or  exploded? 

"A.     No,  sir;  that  was  the  first  sound. 

"  Q.  In  reference  to  the  explosion  of  the  bomb,  when 
did  the  firing  begin? 

"  A.     Almost  immediately. 

"  Q.     From  what  source  did  it  come? 

"  A.     From  both  sides  of  the  street  and  north  of  me. 

t;  Q.  What  did  you  do  when  you  found  that  the  firing 
begun — the  explosion  of  the  bomb  and  the  firing? 

"A.  Fitzpatrick,  the  sergeant,  who  was  in  command 
of  one-half  of  my  company,  and  myself — I  divided  it,  and 
I  being  on  the  left,  rushed  them  around  towards  the  side- 
walk, and  commenced  answering  the  charge  from  that  qaur- 


274 

ter,  and  Fitzpatrick  the  other  way,  from  the  east,  and  we 
commenced  shooting'  right  into  the  crowd  on  the  sidewalk, 
faced  them  right  and  left. 

"  Q.  How  was  your  company  armed  as  you  went 
down  the  street? 

"  A.  We  had  our  regular  revolvers  in  our  pocket,  and 
we  had  a  larger  revolver  in  the  socket  attached  to  our 
belt  on  the  outside. 

"  Q.     How  about  the  clubs? 

"  A.  Clubs  were  also — the  club  in  its  socket,  and  the 
revolver  in  its  socket,  were  both  hanging  to  the  left  side 
of  each  officer. 

"  Q.  Had  the  -pistols  or  the  clubs  been  frilled  before  the 
explosion  of  the  bomb? 

"  A.     JVo,  sir;  they  were  all  in  the  pockets" 

Louis  HAAS,  a  police  officer,  testified  (K,  254): 

"  Q.  In  reference  to  the  explosion  of  the  bomb,  when 
did  the  firing  begin? 

"  A.  There  was  firing  from  the  west  (east}  side  of  the 
street,  almost  at  the  same  time  this  explosion  occurred. 

"  Mr.  BLACK:     Q.     From  which  side  of  the  street? 

"  A.     From  the  east  side  of  the  street  towards  the  wagon. 

"  Mr.  GRINNELL:  Q.  You  may  state  as  to  the 
wagon;  you  mean  from  where  the  wagon  was? 

"  A.      On  the  east  side. 

"  Q.     Had  the  parties  fired  before  the  bomb  exploded? 

"  A.     No,  sir;  they  had  not. 

"  Q.  After  the  bomb  exploded,  did  the  police  fire 
before  the  crowd? 

"  A.  There  were  shots  fired  from  the  east  side  of  the 
street,  where  the  wagon  was,  before  any  shots  were  fired 
from  the  police" 

EDWARD  COSGROVE,  a  police  officer,  testified  (K,  170): 

"  Q.  Before  the  explosion  of  the  bomb,  had  there  been 
any  firing  that  you  heard? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"Q.     No  pistol  shots  fired? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.  With  reference  to  the  firing  of  that  bomb,  how 
soon  did  the  pistol  shots  begin? 


275 

"  A.  Immediately. 

"  Q.  From  what  source  did  they  come  first,  if  you 
know  ? 

"  A.  I  cannot  tell;  I  don't  know. 

WILLIAM  H.  FREEMAN,  a  reporter  (K,  42): 

"  Q.     Do  you  know  where  firing  began  first? 
"  A.     No,  sir;  I  do  not.     The   firing  was  simultaneous 
almost  after  the  explosion  of  the  bomb." 

EDWARD  E.  OWEN  (K,  215): 

"  Q.  You  don't  mean  to  say  that  the  pistol  shots  pre- 
ceded the  bomb? 

"  A.     1  don't  know  -which  was  first. 

"  Q.     You  don't  know  which  was  first? 

"  A.  No,  sir;  the  -pistol  shots  came  from  the  sides  of  the 
street — both  sides? 

"Q.     Both  sides? 

"  A.     Both  sides. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  them? 

"  A.  I  could  hear  them.  I  was  standing  in  such  a 
position  the  bullets  were  right  below  me. 

"  Q.  The  question  is,  did  you  see  any  pistol  shots 
from  the  street  sides,  and  pistol  flashes? 

"  A.     I  could  seejlashes  on  the  opposite  side — I  could  hear. 

"  Q.  Whereabouts  on  the  opposite  side  did  you  see 
any  flashes  of  pistol  shots? 

"  A.     Near  the  alley. 

"  Q.  When  was  that  with  reference  to  the  explosion 
of  the  bomb? 

"A.  As  I  said  before,  it  was  all  simultaneous,  and  I  did 
not  wait  there  to  see  just  how  matters  were  running  from 
the  first  minute." 

HENRY   E.  O.  HEINEMANN,  a  newspaper  reporter  (K, 

235> 

"  Q.  How  soon  after  the  explosion  of  the  bomb  was 
it  before  the  shots  were  heard? 

"  A.     I  could  not  measure  the  time  at  all. 

"  Q.     Almost  instantly?     A.     Almost  instantly. 


276 

"  Q.  Can  you  say  from  whom  the  shots  came  first, 
from  the  police  or  the  crowd? 

"A.  That  I  cannot  say;  it  seems  to  me  as  if  I  heard 
some  bullets  from  pretty  close  proximity  to  myself;  that 
is,  coming  from  the  north. 

LIEUT.  QUINN  (I,  185): 

"  The  people,  when  they  came  up,  stopped — they  got 
to  north  of  where  the  speaker  was  speaking — about 
eight  or  ten  feet  right  to  the  north,  and  formed  a  line 
across  the  street  in  our  front,  and  immediately  when  that 
bomb  was  fired,  and  that  shot  from  the  wagon  which 
came  almost  instantaneously,  at  the  same  time  they  com- 
menced firing  into  our  front  and  from  the  side,  and  then 
from  the  alley  the  firing  commenced.  I  fired  myself.  I 
hadn't  looked  back  then,  but  kept  on  watching  toward 
the  front." 

On  behalf  of  the  defendants,  SIMONSON  testified  (L.,  73), 
that  the  firing  of  pistol  shots  began  on  the  part  of  the  po- 
lice. He  also  swore  on  his  cross-examination  to  the  re- 
markable statement  that  the  whole  of  the  firing  was  done 
by  the  police;  that  no  shots  were  fired  by  any  portion  of 
the  crowd,  and  also  says  (page  116),  the  firing  com- 
menced right  in  the  center  of  the  street  where  the  police 
were,  although  the  testimony  in  the  case  is  uncontra- 
dicted  that  the  police  of  the  second  column  in  the  center 
of  the  street  were  all  thrown  to  the  ground,  and  the  po- 
lice in  the  third  column,  as  appears  from  the  testimony  of 
Lieut.  Hubbard,  wheeled  to  the  right  and  the  left,  ad- 
vancing to  the  sidewalks  before  they  fired. 

ZELLER,  who  had  been  a  member  of  the  Freiheit  group, 
is  quoted  in  the  brief  for  plaintiffs  in  error,  as  having  de- 
nied (I,  157)  that  the  crowd  fired  first.  Zeller  nowhere 
says  that  the  crowd  did  not  fire  first,  but  his  testimony  is 
simply  to  the  effect  that  as  he  ran  south  on  Desplaines 
street  he  heard  bullets  whistling  around  him,  coming 


277 

from  the  north  and  north-west,  and  saw  persons  who 
were  apparently  wounded  by  the  bullets,  and  that  he  saw 
no  one  there  firing  from  the  crowd. 

RICHTER,  a  witness  for  the  defense,  testified  (L,  181), 
that  at  the  time  the  bomb  exploded  he  was  on  Desplaines 
street,  and  about  half  way  between  Crane's  alley  and 
Randolph  street,  moving  or  being  pushed  by  the  crowd 
in  the  direction  of  Randolph  street;  that  immediately  upon 
the  explosion  of  the  bomb  he  heard  shots  fired,  testifying 
that  the  shots  came  from  the  direction  of  the  police  and 
that  he  saw  no  one  in  the  crowd  near  him  fire. 

FREDERICK  LIEBEL,  who  had  been  a  reader  of  the  Ar- 
beiter  Zeitung  ever  since  he  came  to  this  city,  and  who 
went  to  the  meeting  because  of  the  notice  he  saw  in  the 
Arbeiter  Zeitung,  and  who  had  frequently  attended  social- 
istic meetings  and  picnics  at  which  he  heard  some  of  the 
defendants  speak,  testified  (L,  202-3): 

"  Q.  What  came  next  (after  seeing  bomb  in  air)  to 
your  observation? 

"  A.     I  heard  some  shots. 

"  Q.     From  where? 

"  A.  From  the  police  and  from  the  crowd.  I  cannot 
say  from  whom  exactly. 

"  Q.     I  ask  you  from  what  direction  did  the  shots  come? 

"  A.     They  came  from  the  police. 

"  Q.  Did  they  come  from  the  center  of  the  street, 
from  west  of  you? 

"  A.     Yes,  from  west  of  me. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  any  of  the  people  on  the  sidewalk 
return  the  fire? 

"  A.     I  did  not  see  that;  no,  sir. 

"  Q.  Did  you  hear  the  detonation  caused  by  the  ex- 
plosion of  the  bomb?  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  In  reference  to  the  shooting,  was  that  a  little  be- 
fore or  a  little  after,  or  was  it,  in  your  judgment,  simulta- 
•neous? 


278 

"  A.     It  may  be  this  or  that. 

"  The  COURT:     Which  was  first? 

"  A.  It  was  just  near  together,  the  detonation  and  the 
shots — and  the  revolver  shots. 

"  Q.     Which  was  first,  the  shots  or  the  bomb? 

"  A.  They  came  so  near  together  that  I  can't  tell 
which  came  first." 

One  of  the  witnesses  whose  evidence  is  cited  upon  this 
point  is  JAMES  D.  TAYLOR,  who  says  (L,  222)  he  was 
standing  on  the  curbstone  of  the  north  side  of  the  alley  at 
the  time  the  bomb  was  thrown,  close  to  the  west  edge  of 
the  sidewalk;  took  that  position  before  the  speaking  com- 
menced. The  front  rank  of  police  were  on  a  line  with 
witness. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  and  hear  any  pistol  firing? 

"  A.  It  seemed  to  me  almost  simultaneous — the  pistol 
firing  and  the  explosion  of  the  bomb.  The  firing  came 
from  the  direction  where  the  police  were. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  any  pistol  firing  from  the  crowd? 

"  A.  Not  one  (233).  I  was  the  last  man  that  went  up 
the  alley.  Saw  no  perforations  on  the  south  side  of  the 
telegraph  pole  (236).  Been  a  socialist  for  fifty  years; 
know  Fielden,  Parsons,  Spies  and  Neebe,  of  the  defend- 
ants; especially  acquainted  with  Parsons  and  Neebe;  a 
member  of  the  American  group." 

We  call  attention  to  one  portion  of  the  cross-examina- 
tion of  this  witness.  He  says  that  he  got  to  the  Hay- 
market  about  7  o'clock;  that  he  went  directly  to  the -position 
close  to  Crane's  alley  and  stood  there  until  the  meeting'  was 
called. 

"  Q.  So  you  went  up  to  Crane's  by  that  alley  and  stood 
there  until  the  meeting  was  called  (246}  ? 

«  A.  I  did. 

"  Q.  Are  you  mistaken  about  that? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Carft  you  be  mistaken  about  that? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 


279 

"  Q.  Here  is  the  Haymarket  (indicating).  You  sajr 
you  came  down  and  stood  there  from  the  time  you  got 
there  until  the  meeting  was  called  to  order? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Are  you  positive  of  that? 

"  A.  I  went  from  Madison  right  up  there  to  the  alley. 

"  Q.  Didn't  you  go  to  the  Haymarket  and  stand  on 
the  Haymarket  awhile? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Not  any  place  on  the  Haymarket? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Didn't  you  stand  on  the  Haymarket  and  talk 
with  any  groups? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Or  talk  with  any  people? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  You  went  directly  to  that  place  and  stood  there? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  What  did  you  do  that  for? 

"  A.  On  purpose  to  hear. 

"  Q .  You  -wanted  to.  be  there  where  the  meeting  was 
called? 

"  A.  2^es,  1  wanted  to  hear  what  was  going  to  be  said. 

"  Q.  You  went  directly  to  that  place? 

"  A.  Yes,  the  same  as  I  would  go  to  church. 

"  Q.  To  hear  a  socialistic  discussion? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  Did  anybody  tell  you  there  was  going  to  be  a. 
socialistic  meeting? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  You  went  there  to  hear  the  discussion? 

"  A.  Yes,  exactly. 

"  Q.  What  time  did  you  get  there? 

"  A.  A  little  before  7,  I  think." 

An  examination  of  the  testimony  of  this  witness  shows 
that  he  is  utterly  unreliable  and  willing  to  swear  to  any- 
thing which,  in  his  own  opinion,  will  help  the  cause  of  the 
defense.  He  testifies  (L,  233)  that  the  police  fired  first, 
or,  rather,  that  the  first  shots  came  from  the  direction  of 
the  police,  and  that  no  shots  were  fired  from  the  crowd. 


280 

This  witness  swears  positively  and  repeatedly  that  he  went 
to  the  Hay  market  about  7  o'clock  in  the  evening;  that 
immediately  upon  arriving  there  he  crossed  the  Haymar- 
ket,  went  down  Desplaines  street  to  Crane's  alley,  and 
stationed  himself  at  the  very  place  where  the  meeting  was 
called  to  order  by  Spies;  that  he  stood  in  that  position 
from  the  time  he  got  there,  about  7  o'clock,  until  Spies 
called  the  meeting  to  order.  This  statement  is  significant. 
One  of  two  things  is  true:  Either  Dr.  Taylor  swears 
falsely,  -when  he  says  he  stood  there  that  length  of  time,  or 
else  he  knew  beforehand  just  the  faint  at  which  the  meeting 
•would  be  called  to  order.  The  evidence  shows  that  the 
the  original  intention  was  to  have  the  meeting  on  the 
Haymarket.  Spies  himself  in  his  evidence  that  he 
picked  out  the  place  for  the  speaking  after  he  got 
upon  the  ground,  and  that  he  chose  the  position  on 
Desplaines  street  because  it  would  not  interfere  with  travel 
on  Randolph  street.  If  Dr.  Taylor  knew  beforehand 
that  the  meeting  was  to  be  called  at  Crane's  alley  he  must 
have  learned  it  from  Spies  or  some  one  acting  with  him, 
because  Spies  took  upon  himself  the  responsibility  of  call- 
ing it  at  that  place.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Taylor  for 
fifty  years  has  been  a  socialist,  that  he  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  American  group,  intimately  acquainted  with 
Fielden  and  Parsons,  also  acquainted  with  Spies  and 
Neebe,  it  would  not  be  at  all  surprising  if  he  had  been 
previously  informed  at  just  what  point  the  meeting  would 
be  called  to  order,  and  the  significance  of  the  meeting  be- 
ing called  just  at  the  mouth  of  Crane's  alley  is  very  great, 
when  we  consider  the  fact  that  a  man  throwing  a  bomb 
from  the  mouth  of  the  alley  would  have  a  safe  and  secure 
means  of  retreat  through  it.  We  shall  call  attention  later 
to  the  testimony  of  this  witness  upon  another  point. 


28r 

With  reference  to  the  removal  of  the  telegraph  pole 
mentioned  by  witness,  it  was  admitted  by  the  defense  (N, 
150)  that  the  pole  had  been  removed  by  the  telegraph 
company,  which  was  at  that  time  removing  its  poles 
throughout  the  city,  and  not  by  the  city  or  at  its  instance. 

ROBERT  LINDENGER,  living  at  53  North  Clark  street, 
with  Carl  Richter,  says  that  he  went  to  the  Haymarket 
with  Richter,  and  that  the  police  fired  first;  the  crowd 
did  not  fire  at  all. 

FRANK  STENNER  testified  (L,  283)  that  he  was  in  Chi- 
cago since  May,  1885;  that  he  heard  the  police  shoot 
when  the  bomb  was  thrown;  that  he  did  not  see  anybody 
else  shoot  except  the  police,  but  he  says  that  immediately 
after  the  shooting  began  he  laid  himself  on  the  steps  of 
Crane  Brothers,  about  sixty  feet  from  the  wagon,  where 
the  police  came  and  arrested  him. 

JOSEPH  GUTSCHER  testified  (L,  301-3): 

"  When  the  meeting  was  pretty  near  over  the  police 
came  in  and  started  shooting: 

"  Q.      The  police  began  to  shoot  f     A.      Tes. 

"  Q.     Who  did  they  shoot  at? 

"  A.  They  shot  at  everybody  that  they  found  on  the 
street. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  anybody  except  the  policemen  shoot? 

"  A.     No,  sir?'' 

He  testified  also  that  he  was  standing  on  the  west  side 
of  Desplaines  street,  directly  opposite  the  mouth  of  Crane's 
alley,  and  that  the  bomb  exploded  twenty-five  or  thirty  feet 
south  of  him,  when  every  other  witness  in  the  case  swears 
that  the  bomb  exploded  about  on  a  line  with  the  alley. 

FRANK  RAAB  testifies  (L,  315-6)  that  the  police  fired 
and  the  crowd  did  not. 


282 

WILLIAM  URBAN  (L,  338)  who  has  been  a  composi- 
tor on  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  since  1879,  anc^  is  a  member 
of  the  Central  .Labor  Union,  testifies  that  at  the  time  the 
police  came  up  he  was  standing  seven  or  eight  feet  from 
the  lamp-post  on  the  east  side  of  the  alley,  and  that  at  the 
time  Capt.  Ward  gave  the  order  for  the  meeting  to  dis- 
perse he  saw  in  the  hands  of  the  policemen  (352)  in  the 
front  rank  near  sidewalk,  something  shining  like  revolv- 
ers; he  says  (page  346)  he  did  not  see  any  of  the  citizens 
fire,  and  that  he  is  a  socialist. 

With  reference  to  the  testimony  of  this  witness,  we  call 
attention  to  the  evidence  introduced  on  rebuttal,  which 
appears  in  Vol.  N,  pages  260,  270.  The  evidence  of  four- 
teen officers  who  stood  in  the  first  and  second  rows  near- 
est the  east  sidewalk  shows  positively  that  no  officer 
at  the  point  indicated  by  the  witness  had  a  revolver  in 
his  hand  before  the  explosion  of  the  bomb. 

EBERHARD  HIERSEMENZEL  testified  (L,  384): 

"  When  the  police  came  up  I  saw  the  commanding 
officer  of  the  police  walk  up  to  the  wagon  and  converse  a 
few  words  with  Mr.  Fielden,  and  whilst  I  was  looking  at 
Mr.  Fielden  I  at  once  heard  a  noise  like  a  shot,  and  I 
turned  around  and  saw  the  police  fire  at  the  people. 

"  Q.  At  that  time  did  you  see  any  of  the  people  fire 
at  or  towards  the  police  (page  387)? 

"  A.  No.  *  *  The  commanding  officer 

stepped  up  to  the  wagon  (page  394),  said  a  few  words 
to  Mr.  Fielden,  and  Mr.  Fielden  said  a  few  words  in  re- 
turn, and  while  I  still  had  my  eyes  on  Mr.  Fielden,  I 
heard  behind  me  the  noise  of  pistol  shots,  and  as  I  -was  turn- 
ing around  1  saw  them  fire  into  the  -people. 

"  Q.     Saw  the  police  fire?     A.     Yes." 

The  witness  further  swore  that  he  did  not  see  any 
shots  fired  from  the  crowd. 

CONRAD  MESSER  testified  (L,  401)  that  he  was  stand- 


283 

ing  by  the  side  of  the  wagon  at  the  time  the  police  ar- 
rived; says:  "After  the  bomb  exploded  the  policemen 
"  shot  all  of  the  crowd,  so  I  went  on  the  sidewalk  and 
"  Mr.  Fielden  stepped  on  the  sidewalk  too;  after  this  I 
"  did  not  see  him  any  more.  *  *  * 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  any  citizen  shoot  there? 
«  A.     No,  sir." 

GEORGE  KOEHLER  says  (L,  508)  that  the  firing  was  by 
the  police,  and  that  none  of  the  crowd  fired.  But  it  fur- 
ther appears  from  the  testimony  of  this  witness  (page 
517)  that  the  moment  he  saw  the  bomb  in  the  air,  before 
it  exploded  and  before  he  knew  what  it  was,  as  he  says, 
he  started  to  run  and  fell  down  on  the  sidewalk,  and  was 
lying  on  the  sidewalk  at  the  time  he  was  shot,  and  it  is 
clear  that  he  could  not  have  known  who  shot  or  from 
what  direction. 

CHARLES  HEIDEKRUEGER  testified  (L,  543)  that  the 
police  and  no  one  else  fired. 

CHARLES  Louis  SCHMIDT  (L,  552)  is  quoted  by  the 
counsel  for  the  defense  in  their  brief  as  saying  that  the 
firing  came  from  the  police,  and  not  from  the  crowd. 
We  call  attention  to  this  portion  of  his  testimony: 

"  Q.  At  the  time  the  bomb  exploded,  how  far  were 
you  from  the  wagon? 

"  A.     Perhaps  two  or  three  paces. 

"  Q.  Where  did  you  go  after  the  explosion  of  the 
bomb? 

"  A.     I  went  northward  on  Canal  street,  towards  this 

way  (indicating). 

****** 

"  Q.     Did  you  run  with  the  crowd  north? 
"  A.     Yes;  I  went  with  the  crowd  of  people. 
"  Q.     Did  you  hear  and  see  the   police   shoot  on  that 
occasion  ? 


284 

"  A.  1  cannot  tell  actually  and  -positively  -whether  it 
•was  the  police  shooting,  but  1  saw  the  first  shots  fired  from 
the  southerly  direction,  and  then  right  away  after  that  the 
bomb  came  from  the  other  direction" 

This  witness  had  been  a  constant  reader  of  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung  since  he  came  to  this  country,  and  the  fact  that 
he  swears  that  the  shots  were  fired  by  the  police  before 
the  bomb  was  thrown  shows  that  no  credence  whatever 
can  be  given  him  or  his  evidence. 

JOSEPH  SCHWINDT  (L,  557),  a  reader  of  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung,  who  had  lived  in  this  country  one  year  and  nine 
months,  was  present  at  the  meeting  because  of  having 
read  a  notice  of  it  in  that  paper;  says  that  the  police  fired, 
and  that  the  crowd  did  not. 

JOHN  HOLLOWAY,  one  of  the  witnesses  cited  by 
plaintiffs  in  error,  testifies  (M,  61)  as  follows: 

"  The  COURT:  Q.  Where  did  the  first  shots  come 
from,  if  you  saw  any  shots? 

"  A.  I  never  did  see  any  shots.  I  only  heard  them; 
that  was  after  the  bomb  exploded. 

"•  Q.     From  what  direction  did  the}'  come? 

"  A.  I  cannot  tell  you  more  than  from  their  report, 
because  you  cannot  see  every  place. 

"  Q.     Where  do  you  think  they  came  from? 

"  A.  From  the  middle  of  the  street,  or  the  street  in 
behind  us. 

"  Q.  Was  there  a  large  number  of  people  in  about 
where  you  stood? 

"  A.     There  was;  it  was  full. 

He  *  *  *  * 

"  Q.  After  the  shooting  commenced  where  did  you 
go?  Which  direction  did  you  take  ? 

"  A.  I  took  on  the  sidewalk  in  the  direction  of  Ran- 
dolph street. 

"  Q.     Then  where  did  you  go  ? 

"  A.     Well,    the   shooting    commenced    then,    pretty 


285 

strongly,  and  came  from  the  middle  of  the  street,  some- 
where; I  don't  know  where,  and  the  people  fell  down 
and  I  fell  down,  and  one  man  exclaimed  he  was  shot,  and 
I  pulled  him  up  against  me,  to  keep  the  bullets  off  me." 

EDWARD  LEHNERT  (M,  82),  cited  by  plaintiffs  in  er- 
ror, nowhere  in  his  evidence  says  that  the  police  fired 
first. 

WILLIAM  SNYDER,  who  was  a  socialist,  a  member  of 
the  American  group,  testifies  (M,  112)  that  he  was  one 
of  the  parties  on  the  wagon  upon  which  the  speaker 
stood,  and  a  friend  of  some  of  the  plaintiffs  in  error;  that 
the  police  fired,  and  that  no  shots  zvere  fired  by  the  crowd. 

JOHN  F.  WALDO,  a  socialist,  a  member  of  the  Ameri- 
can group  and  of  the  International  Rifles,  the  armed  sec- 
tion of  that  group,  testified  (M,  164)  that  the  police  fired 
and  the  crowd  did  not.  The  witness  also  swore  positively 
on  cross-examination  (M,  174),  that  the  -police  fired  before 
the  explosion  of  the  bomb,  -which  is  a  manifest  lie* 

STEPHEN  T.  INGRAM  (M,  513),  cited  by  plaintiffs  in 
error,  says: 

"  Q.     Who  was  it  that  was  doing  the  shooting  ? 

"  A.  Well,  most  of  the  shooting  that  I  could  hear — it 
seemed  like  the  police  were  shooting. 

#  *  #  #  # 

"  Q.  Was  there  any  shot  fired  from  the  wagon  before 
you  heard  the  explosion  of  the  bomb? 

"A.     No,  sir;  there  was  not. 

"  Q.     Was  there  afterwards? 

"  A.  There  was  not  that  I  could  hear,  there  was  not 
that  I  could  tell.  The  police  were  not  very  far  from  the 
wagon,  and  there  was  a  great  deal  of  shooting  where  they 
were.  I  could  not  tell  positively,  the  crowd  began  to  rush 
so. 


286 

HENRY  SCHULTZ  (M,  388),  cited  by  plaintiffs  in  error, 
does  not  testify  that  the  police  fired  first. 

When  we  consider  the  character  of  the  witnesses  intro- 
duced by  the  defense  upon  this  point,  the  manifest 
sympathy  of  most  if  not  all  of  them  with  the  prisoners, 
and  that  many  of  them  were  members  of  socialistic  or- 
ganizations, readers  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  and  most 
of  whom  were  crowded  together  in  the  immediate  vicinity 
of  the  wagon,  and  in  that  portion  of  the  crowd  which  was 
most  demonstrative  and  boisterous,  and  when  we  consider 
that  most  of  them  swear  positively  that  no  shots  were 
fired  by  the  crowd,  but  that  all  came  from  the  police, 
there  can  be  no  question  in  the  mind  of  any  reasonable 
man,  considering  all  of  the  evidence  together,  that  the 
crowd  opened  fire  immediately  upon  the  explosion  of  the 
bomb,  and  no  reliability  can  be  placed  upon  the  testimony 
of  those  who  testify  otherwise.  There  can  be  no  possible 
question  in  this  case  that  the  crowd  did  fire.  This  is  ap- 
parent from  the  testimony  of  the  surgeons  who  attended 
policemen  wounded  at  the  time,  and  who  testified  that  the 
bullets  extracted  from  officers  were  of  different  sizes 
(see  K,  188),  while  the  police  force  was  armed  with  a 
regulation  revolver.  It  is  apparent  from  the  testimony  of 
the  witnesses  already  cited.  It  is  also  apparent  from  the 
testimony  of  Officers  Doyle  (I,  338),  Krueger  (I,  248), 
Hanley  (I,  306). 

The  crowd  did  fire  first.  About  that  there  can  be  no 
question.  They  fired  before  the  police  fired  and  instan- 
taneously upon  the  explosion  of  the  bomb.  That  fact  of 
itself  is  almost  conclusive  evidence  that  the  throwing  of  the 
bomb  that  night  -was  the  result  of  a  conspiracy. 


287 


(2.)     THREATS  AS  THE   POLICE  APPROACHED. 

H.  F.  KREUGER,  who  was  number  i  in  the  front 
rank,  on  the  right  of  Lieut.  Steele's  company,  testified 
(I,  232): 

"  I  heard  somebody  speaking  on  the  wagon. 

"  Q.     Did  you  hear  what  he  said? 

"  A.  I  could  not  hear  distinctly  what  he  said,  only  one 
remark  that  I  distinguished  when  we  got  up  pretty  close,, 
within  twenty-five  or  thirty  feet. 

"  Q.     What  was  that? 

"A.  I  think  it  was  something  like  this:  «  Here  they 
are  now,  the  blood-hounds,^  or  some  such  remark  as  that. 

"  Q.     Was  that  the  speaker  on  the  wagon? 

"  A.     I  should  judge  it  -was;  1  -would  not  be  positive" 

On  cross-examination  the  same  witness  was  asked: 

"  Q.  Did  you  hear  in  a  loud  tone  of  voice,  '  You  do  your 
duty,  and  we  will  do  ours  ?  ' 

"  A.  Well,  1  heard  something  like  that,  but  I  would 
not  swear  to  it. 

"  Q.  Why  didn't  you  tell  the  state's  attorney  about 
that? 

"  A.  Well,  I  am  not  certain  about  it.  What  I  am  not 
certain  about,  I  am  not  going  to  say. 

"  Q.     Are  you  certain  of  it? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.  Tfyen  you  did  not  hear,  '  You  do  your  duty,  and  I 
will  do  mine?' 

"  A.     I  heard  something  like  that. 

"  Q.     Did  you  hear  that? 

"  A.  I  am  not  positive.  I  heard  something  like  that. 
That  was  the  reason  I  could  not  tell  it  to  the  state's  attor- 
ney. 

"  Q.  All  that  you  heard,  then,  that  you  are  positive  of, 
is,  '  Here  come  the  blood-hounds,  now?' 

"  A.     '  Here  they  are,  now,  the  blood-hounds.' 

"  Q.     That  is  all  that  you  are  sure  that  you  heard? 

« A.     Yes." 


288 

Lieut.  MARTIN  QUINN,  whose  company  was  to  the 
left  of  that  of  Lieut.  Steele's  as  they  marched  down  the 
street,  says  (I,  183): 

"  As  we  were  within  about  fifty  feet  of  where  the 
speakers  were,  I  heard  the  remark  passed,  '  Here  they  are 
now,  the  blood-hounds.  You  do  yotir  duty  and  I  will  do 
mine.'1  That  came  from  the  man  that  -was  speaking  at  that 
time. 

"  Q.     From  what  place  was  he  speaking? 

"  A.     On  the  wagon." 

Lieut.  STEEL.E,  who  was  in  command  of  the  first  com- 
pany on  the  right,  the  one  which  stood  nearest  to  the 
wagon,  testifies  (I,  171): 

"  Q.  Could  you  hear  or  did  you  hear  an}'  one  in  the 
wagon  speaking  prior  to  your  getting  there  or  prior  to 
your  halting? 

"  A.     I  could  hear  speaking  going  on  in  front  of  us. 

"  Q.     Did  you  distinguish  the  words? 

"  A.  I  heard  the  words  uttered  by  some  one,  '  2  on  do 
your  duty  and  we  2uill  do  ours? 

"  Q.      Who  was  it  that  made  that  remark? 

"A.     That  I  could  not  say;  it  was  said  from   in  front. 

"  Q.     Was  it  said  from  the  street  or  the  wagon? 

"A.  Well,  it  was  in  front  of  us.  The  sound  came  from 
in  front  of  us  as  we  marched  up.  We  took  up  pretty 
nearly  the  whole  street,  the  two  companies;  Quinn  was 
on  the  left,  on  the  west  side  of  the  street,  and  1  was  on 
the  east  side,  nearer  the  wagon  than  Quinn 's  company" 

On  cross-examination,  he  says  (page  179): 

"  Q.  You  heard  the  remark  come  from  the  direction 
of  the  main  body  of  the  crowd  stating  that  '  you  do 
your  duty  and  I  will  do  mine';  or,  '  we  will  do  ours  '? 

"  A.  '  The  blood-hounds  are  coming;  yon  do  your 
duty  and  we  will  do  ours? 

"  Q.  That  came  from  the  direction  of  the  body  of 
the  crowd? 

"  A.     Yes;  in  front  of  us. 

"  Q.     You  don't  pretend,  of    course,  to  say,  and  you 


289 

don't  now  wish  the  jury  to  understand  you  as  saying, 
that  the  speaker  made  that  declaration  from  the  wagon 
and  in  the  midst  of  his  speech? 

"  A.     I  didn't  say  so. 

"  Q.  Well,  I  say,  you  don't  wish  the  jury  to  infer 
that  y  ou  mean  it — you  do  not  so  mean — you  don't  pre- 
tend to  say  who  it  was? 

"  A.  I  don't  pretend  to  say  anything,  only  what  I 
know. 

"  Q.  Well,  you  know  that  you  heard  that  voice,  but 
I  say  you  do  not  know  where  it  came  from.  That  is  all 
there  is  to  it? 

"  A.     It  came  from  the  front,  in  front  of  me. 

"  Q.  Certainly,  all  of  the  audience  was  in  front  of 
you,  except  a  few  stragglers  on  the  sidewalk,  as  I  un- 
derstand you  to  stay;  that  is  true,  isn't  it.' 

"  A.     Yes. 

JOHN  WESSLER  (I,  256),  who  was  in  Lieut.  Bowler's 
company  on  the  right,  being  the  second  column,  testified 
that  he  had  got  about  as  far  as  the  Randolph  street  car 
track  on  the  north.  "  We  were  marching  along  and  I 
"  heard  the  remark,  '  There  come  the  blood-hounds^  and 
"  whatever  remark  was  made  after  that  I  could  not  state." 

On  cross-examination  (page  263): 

"  Q.  Just  as  you  got  north  of  the  railroad  track,  be- 
tween the  track  and  the  edge  of  the  street,  you  heard 
*  Here  come  the  blood-hounds'? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     Where  did  that  come  from? 

"  A.  It  came  from  towards  where  the  speaker  was;  1 
could  not  swear  -positively  whether  it  was  the  speaker  or  not. 
***** 

"  Q.  When  you  say  it  came  from  the  direction  where 
the  speaking  was,  you  mean  it  came  from  somewhere  on 
the  north  of  you? 

« A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  You  don't  mean  to  say  that  the  man  on  the 
wagon  uttered  that? 

"A.     No,  sir;  I  was  too  far  away." 


Louis  HAAS,  a  police  officer  in  citizen's  clothes,  who 
was  circling  among  the  crowd  at  the  meeting,  testified 
(K,  250-1): 

"  As  the  first  company  got  across  Randolph  street,  north 
of  Randolph  within  ten  or  fifteen  feet,  I  heard  Fielden 
make  this  remark:  '  Here  comes  the  blood-hounds,  now 
men  do  your  duty  and  I  will  do  mine.' 

"  Q.  Now,  where  were  the  policemen,  the  front  ranks 
of  the  policemen  with  reference  to  the  car  tracks  on  Ran- 
dolph street,  when  you  heard  that  remark? 

"  A.     They  were  north  of  Randolph  street. 

"  Q.     Where  were  you? 

"  A.  I  was  then  on  the — pretty  near  the  center  of  the 
street,  more  toward  the  west  side  of  the  street  than  the 
east,  I  should  say. 

"  Q.     Well,  with  reference  to  the  wagon,  say? 

"  A.  Well,  I  should  say  I  was  then  within  five  or  six 
feet  of  the  wagon.". 

On  cross-examination  his  testimony  was  to  the  same 
effect. 

In  this  connection  we  desire  to  call  particular  attention 
to  the  testimony  of  FRANK  STENNER,  a  witness  called  by 
the  defense,  who,  upon  cross-examination,  says  (L,  292): 

"  Q.  When  the  bomb  exploded  you  were  looking  at 
the  police  come  up? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Did  you  hear  Fielden  speak? 

« A.  TeS. 

"  Q.      What  was  it  he  said? 

"  A.      When  he  saw  those  policemen  he  said,  ' Stand? 

"  Q.  He  said  «  stand''  in  a  good,  strong  tone? 

"  A.  JVbt  very  loud. 

"Q.  You  heard  it? 

"  A.  /  heard  it. 

"  Q.  How  far  were  you  from  him  when  he  said  it? 

"  A.  From  whom? 

"Q.  From  Fielden? 
"  A.      Well,  about  six  or  eight  feet" 


On  re-direct  examination  he  said  (page  299): 

"  Q.  You  say  Mr.  Fielden  said  « stand  '? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Do  you  remember  the  word  <  stand  '? 

"A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Did  he,  in  that  connection,  say  '  stand  together  if 
you  are  going  to  succeed  in  the  eight-hour  movement'? 

"  A.  I  don't  know. 

*'  Q.  You  remember  the  word  'stand  '? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Your  English  was  not  as  perfect  then  as  now? 

"  A.  No,  sir." 

Another  witness  for  the  defense,  JOHN  BERNETT,  upon 
cross-examination  (M,  487)  testified: 

"  Q.  Now,  when  the  police  came  up,  what  did  you 
hear  Fielden  say? 

"  A.  I  cannot  remember  now.  He  was  speaking  on 
and  the  police  came  up. 

"  Q.  The  police  came  up;  but  what  did  he  say?  Did 
he  say  '  stand'  ? 

"  A.     No,  sir;  not  then. 

"  Q.     When  did  he  say  that? 

"  A.  I  heard  that  when  the  captain  of  the  police  or- 
dered them  to  leave  that  place.  I  heard  somebody  say 
'Stand!  Don't  run'!" 

There  is  no  pretense  based  upon  any  evidence  in  the 
case  that  Fielden  at  any  time  toward  the  close  of  his 
speech,  and  about  the  time  when  the  remark  testified  to 
by  Stenner  was  made,  said  anything  about  working- 
men  standing  together,  or  used  any  phrase  of  that 
sort.  Moreover,  while  the  speech  which  he  made  to 
the  audience  was  in  a  loud  tone  of  voice,  as  is  admitted 
by  every  one,  the  command  to  stand,  Stenner  says, 
was  in  a  low  tone  of  voice,  and  it  was  addressed  un- 
doubtedly to  those  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
the  wagon,  who  were  the  enthusiastic  supporters  of  the 


292 

speaker,  and  this  command  was  in  perfect  keeping  with 
the  character  of  Fielden,  as  exemplified  in  his  speech,  when 
he  said  at  its  very  close,  as  testified  to  by  Mr.  English 
(K,  283) :  "  Socialists  are  not  going  to  declare  war,  but 
"  I  tell  you  war  has  been  declared  upon  us,  and  I  ask  you 
"  to  get  hold  of  anything  that  will  help  to  resist  the  on- 
"  slaught  of  the  enemy  and  the  usurper.  The  skirmish 
"  lines  have  met.  People  have  been  shot.  Men,  women 
"  and  children  have  not  been  spared  by  the  capitalists  and 
"  minions  of  private  capital.  It  had  no  mercy,  so  ought 
"  you.  You  are  called  upon  to  defend  yourselves^  your 
"  lives,  your  future.  What  matters  it  whether  you  kill 
"  yourselves  with  work  to  get  a  little  relief  or  die  on  the 
"  battle-field  resisting  the  enemy?  What  is  the  difference? 
"  Any  animal,  however  loathsome,  will  resist  when  stepped 
"  upon.  Are  you,  men,  less  than  snails  or  worms?  / 
"  have  some  resistance  in  me.  I  know  that  you  have,  too* 
"  You  have  been  robbed  and  you  will  be  starved  into  a  worse 
"  condition" 

Stress  is  laid  in  the  argument  upon  the  fact  that  Mr. 
English,  the  reporter  for  the  Tribune,  did  not  hear  the 
words  attributed  to  Fielden  by  the  foregoing  witnesses. 
That  fact,  however,  is  of  no  significance  whatever,  because 
according  to  his  statement  as  soon  as  he  saw  the  police 
approaching  him  he  immediately  ran  south  to  the  north- 
west corner  of  Randolph  and  Desplaines  streets  and  was 
there  at  the  time  the  command  to  disperse  was  given. 
He  did  not  even  hear  Fielden's  exclamation,  "  we  are 
"  peaceable."  which  was  heard  by  nearly  every  witness 
that  testified  in  the  case.  A  number  of  witnesses  are  cited 
on  page  9  of  the  brief  filed  by  Messrs.  Black,  Salomon  and 
Zeisler,  who  swear  that  they  did  not  hear  this  utterance. 
Even  if  those  witnesses  testified  truthfully,  the  fact  that 


they  did  not  hear  it  would  not  prove  that  no  such  utter- 
ance was  made,  because  at  the  time  it  was  made  there  was 
great  noise,  disturbance  and  confusion.  Some  witnesses 
would  hear  one  utterance  and  see  certain  things,  while 
other  witnesses  would  not  hear  the  utterance,  but  would 
hear  others  and  see  other  things.  It  is  in  the  nature  of 
negative  testimony  and  cannot  avail  as  against  positive. 
Moreover,  from  an  examination  of  the  testimony  of^  these 
witnesses  it  will  appear  that  most,  if  not  all  of  them,  are 
sympathizers  with  the  defendants,  man)-  of  them  social- 
ists, members  of  groups,  readers  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung, 
and  they  were  the  very  persons  who  constituted  the  tu- 
multuous portion  of  the  crowd. 

Counsel  for  plaintiffs  in  error,  in  their  brief  (pageio),say 
that  this  remark  is  one  of  the  heirlooms  of  the  detectives 
and  police  and  has  done  duty  on  previous  occasions. 

Counsel  evidently  have  forgotten  that  no  remark 
would  come  more  naturally  from  the  lips  of  the  speakers 
on  that  occasion  than  the  characterization  of  the  police  as 
"  blood-hounds."  In  fact,  the  evidence  shows  that  the 
pet  expression  used  by  all  of  these  defendants,  both  in 
print  and  in  speech,  whenever  referring  to  the  police,  was 
"blood-hounds";  an  expression  made  use  of  only  the 
day  before  by  Spies  and  Schwab  in  the  articles  which 
they  wrote  for  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung. 

And  it  is  significant  that  Fielden,  although  he  took  the 
stand  as  a  witness,  did  not  deny  having  uttered  the 
words. 


294 


(3.) 


Officer  KREUGER,  who  was  number  one  in  the  front 
rank  to  the  right,  of  Steele's  company,  testified  (1,233): 

"  Q.  In  reference  to  the  use  of  those  words,  '  we  are 
peaceable,'  what  did  he  (Fielden)  do? 

"  A.  He  (Fielden)  stood  at  the  south  end  of  the 
wagon;  the  wagon  was  standing  up  north  and  somebody 
in  the  crowd  told  him  (Fielden)  to  get  down,  and  he  said, 
'  all  right,'  and  he  stepped  down  and  from  the  wagon  and 
passed  right  to  my  right  behind  the  wagon,  and  in  about 
a  moment  the  bomb  fell  behind  me. 

"  Q.     Then  what? 

"  A.  Then  I  saw  a  pistol  in  his  hand  and  it  exploded 
twice.  1  am  certain  of  two  shots  being  fired  by  that  gen- 
tleman (Fielderi). 

"  Q.  Where  was  he  with  reference  to  the  wagon,  and 
where  were  you  with  reference  to  the  wagon  when  that 
thing  happened? 

"  A.  I  stood  within  about  six  or  eight  feet  of  the 
wagon. 

"  Q.  On  which  side  of  it,  south  of  it  or  the  street 
side  of  it? 

"  A.  On  the  street  side  of  it.  He  (Fielden)  passed 
right  past  me;  I  could  almost  have  touched  him  with  my 
hand,  and  he  went  right  behind  the  wagon  and  stepped 
up  on  the  sidewalk,  up  on  the  curbstone,  when  the  bomb 
exploded.  Then  1  saw  him  have  a  pistol  in  his  hand,  and 
he  fired  twice  to  my  recollection. 

"  Q.     Which  way  did  he  fire? 

"  A.  Well,  I  judged  he  fired  directly  at  the  column  of 
the  police. 

"  Q.     What  was  his  attitude — -what  did  he  do? 

"  A.  He  took  cover  behind  the  wagon  as  far  as  I 
could  judge. 

"  Q.     Describe  how  he  took  cover? 

"A.  He  took  cover  behind  the  wagon;  he  covered 
himself  with  the  wagon  between  the  police  and  him.  I 


295 

then  returned  his  fire,  and  at  the  same  instant  I  received 
a  bullet  in  my  knee-cap. 

******  # 

"  Q.     The  wagon  was  about  where  this  is  (indicating), 
and  Fielden  was  on  the  sidewalk  about  there  (indicating 
and  the  wagon  between  you? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     When  he  fired,  what  did  he  do? 

"  A.  He  fired  directly  at  the  column  of  the  police,  auu 
he  fired  two  shots  from  there,  the  same  as  if  this  is  the 
wagon  (indicating),  he  -would  crouch  in  this  way  (indicat- 
ing). 

"  Q.     He  stooped  down  behind  the  -wagon  f 

«  A.     res. 

"  Q.     Did  you  receive  a  wound? 

"  A.     I  received  a  wound  the  same  instant. 
******* 

"  Q.     What  is  the  last  you  saw  of  Fielden? 

"  A.  Well,  the  firing  was  going  on  pretty  lively,  and 
I  saw  that  he  was  in  the  crowd,  and  I  shot  at  him  again, 
and  he  kind  of  staggered,  but  did  not  fall,  and  he  mixed 
up  with  the  crowd  and  I  did  not  see  him  any  more  after 
that." 

On  cross-examination  (page  243)  the  witness  testified: 

"  Q.     You  say  that  Fielden  passed  to  the  sidewalk? 

"  A.     He  stepped  up  to  the  sidewalk. 

"  Q.     And  he  got  under  cover  of  the  wagon? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"Q.     That  is,  went  north? 

"  A.  He  stepped  right  behind  the  wagon,  one  step- 
north. 

"  Q.  The  rear  of  the  wagon,  where  there  were  no 
sideboards  or  no  obstructions,  was  to  the  south,  wasn't  it? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  So  when  he  passed  out  of  the  wagon  he  passed 
south  and  got  down? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  You  were  within  six  feet  of  him,  further  south 
and  near  the  curbstone? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     He  then  went  to  the  sidewalk   and   went  north? 


296 

"  A.     Stepped  right  behind  the  wagon. 

"  Q.  How  near  was  he  to  the  curb  at  the  time  you 
say  he  fired? 

"A.  He  was  right  on  the  curb;  he  stepped  right  on 
to  the  curb. 

"  Q.     How  near  to  the  curb  were  you  in  the  street? 

"  A.  Well,  I  was  within,  I  should  judge,  four  feet  of 
the  curb — four  or  five  feet  of  the  curb. 

"  Q.  How  far  did  he  go  north  of  the  end  of  the  wagon, 
which  was  within  six  feet  of  you? 

"  A.     He  went  only  one  step  north. 

'  'Q.  How  far  north  of  the  end  of  the  wagon  did  he 
step  before  you  say  he  fired? 

"A.     He  got  just  behind  the  wagon. 

"Q,     That  is,  to  the  side? 

"  A.     Yes,  to  the  side  of  the  wagon. 

"  Q.     How  near  to  the  south  end  of  the  wagon  was  he? 

"  A,     Just  enough  to  cover  his  body. 

****** 

"  Q.  Mr.  Fielden  was  then  probably  seven  or  eight 
feet  further  north  of  you  and  a  little  to  the  right,  was  he? 

"  A.     Yes,  that  was  his  position. 

"  Q.  Now,  when  he  went  away,  you  say  that  he  went 
through  the  alley? 

"  A.  I  would  not  swear  to  it.  I  said  he  mixed  in  the 
crowd  toward  the  alley. 

"  Q.  I  understood  you  to  say  a  while  ago  in  your  testi- 
mony that  he  went  through  the  alley — he  mixed  with  the 
crowd  and  went  away  through  the  alley? 

"  A.     Diagonally  toward  the  alley. 

"  Q.     Then  he  came  towards  you? 

"A.  No;  he  crossed  away  from  me;  he  was  behind 
the  wagon  and  crossed  over  to  the  alley." 

L.  C.  BAUMANN,  of  Lieut.  Steele's  company,  was  in 
the  first  rank,  the  seventh  man  from  the  right;  he  testified 
(I,  296): 

"  Q.  Where  were  you  standing  with  reference  to  the 
wagon  when  the  bomb  exploded? 

"  A.     I  was  standing  north  of  that  alley  there. 
"  Q.     About  how  far  from  the  wagon? 


297 

"  A.     Well,  I  should  judge  about  three  or  four  feet. 

"  Q.     After  the  bomb  exploded  what  did  you  do? 

"  A.     I  stood  right  there. 

"  Q.     What  did  you  see? 

"  A.  As  soon  as — well,  what  did  I  see,  I  saw  Mr. 
Fielden,  that  he  was  standing  on  the  hind  wheel,  behind 
the  hind  wheel  of  the  -wagon^  and  had  a  revolver  in  his 
hand  and  fired  off  a  shot. 

#  #  *  *  *  * 

"  Q.  Where  was  he  (Fielden)  standing,  when  you 
saw  him  with  with  the  revolver  in  his  hand? 

"  A.     He  was  standing  on  the  sidewalk. 

"  Q.     Where  with  reference  to  the  wagon? 

"  A.     Right  behind  the  hind  wheel. 

"  Q.     In  what  direction  did  he  shoot? 

"  A.     He  shot  from  east  to  west. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  him  fire  more  than  once? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Where  was  your  attention  directed  after  seeing 
him  fire  the  first  shot? 

"  A.  So  we  got  called  to  '  fall  in,'  and  we  all  went  in 
the  ranks  and  we  shot — fired. 

"  Q.  When  you  saw  him  fire  the  shot  from  behind 
the  wagon,  was  that  before  or  after  the  explosion  of  the 
bomb? 

"  A.     That  was  after  the  explosion  of  the  bomb. 

"  Q.  About  how  much  time,  in  your  opinion,  elapsed 
between  the  explosion  of  the  bomb  and  the  firing  of  the 
shot? 

"  A.     I  should  say  about  half  a  minute." 

On  cross-examination  (page  299),  he  testified: 

"  Q.     You  saw  Fielden  fire  but  one  shot? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  And  then  you  say  he  fired  from  the  sidewalk, 
from  behind  the  wheel  of  the  wagon? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  He  was  standing  at  that  time  behind  the  wagon 
and  between  the  wheels,  was  he? 

"  A.     He  was  between  the  wheels. 

"  Q.     Between  the  wheels  and  behind  the  wagon? 

"  A.     Yes. 


298 

**  Q.  On  the  sidewalk? 

"  A.  On  the  sidewalk. 

"  Q.  You  saw  him  fire  but  one  shot? 

«  A.  That  is  all." 

Counsel  say  in  their  brief,  at  page  14,  with  reference 
to  the  testimony  of  this  witness,  he  admits  that  he  saw 
Fielden  that  night  for  the  first  time,  that  he  did  not  see 
him  since  then  until  he  testified,  and  that  he  asked  some 
of  the  officers  who  that  man  was  that  fired  the  shot,  and 
they  told  him  it  was  Fielden.  What  he  did  say  is  as  fol- 
lows (page  302-3): 

"  Q.  When  did  you  first  see  Fielden  after  that  night? 

"  A.  I  have  not  seen  him  after  that. 

"Q.  Until  now? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir. 

'•  Q.  When  did  you  first  see  him  here  in  court? 

"  A.  This  morning. 

"  Q.  This  morning,  that  is  the  first  time? 

"  A.  Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.  And  you  have  never  seen  him  before? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  How  do  you  know  it  was  Fielden,  then? 

"  A.  Well,  I  simply  asked  who  that  man  was  that 
fired  the  shot,  and  so  they  told  me  it  was  Fielden. 

"  Q.  Who  told  you  that  it  was  Fielden  that  fired  the 
shot? 

"  A.  Some-  of  the  officers. 

"  Q.  Yes,  but  who? 

"  A.  I  could  not  tell. 

"  Q.  You  did  not  know  yourself  then  at  that  time  that 
it  was  Fielden  who  was  shooting,  did  you? 

"  A.  No,  sir;  I  only  know  his  face. 

"  Q.  Now,  what  light  did  you  have  there  that  night 
to  tell  his  face  by? 

"  A.  We  had  light  enough  to  go  and   recognize  any 

one." 

#*####### 

"  Q.  And  you  haven't  seen  Fielden  from  the  4th  of 
May  until  you  saw  him  here  to-day  in  court? 


299 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Where  were  you  sitting  to-day  when  you  first 
saw  him? 

"  A.  I  was  sitting  there  (indicating). 

"  Q.  Who  pointed  him  out  to  you? 

"  A.  1  pointed  him  out  myself. 

"  Q.  You  pointed  him  out? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  You  recognized  him  f 

« A.  res. 

"  Q.  To  whom  did  you  point  him  out? 

"A.  To  myself. 

"  Q.  You  yourself  pointed  him  out  to  yourself? 

« A.  Yes." 

Officer  HANLEY  was  in  Lieut.  Steele's  company  in  the 
first  rank,  number  4  from  the  right,  and  testified  (I,  306): 

"  Q.  At  the  time  the  bomb  exploded  how  far  were 
you  from  the  wagon? 

"  A.     I  was  about  four  or  five  feet. 

"  Q.     Which  direction  were  you  from  the  wagon? 

"  A.     I  was  facing  north. 

"  Q.  Did  you  notice  the  man  speaking  that  was  the 
last  speaker? 

"  A.     I  did. 
######### 

"  Q.  Tell  what  you  saw  immediately  after  the  bomb 
exploded? 

"  A.  Immediately  after  the  bomb  exploded  I  turned 
my  face  from  (to)  where  the  explosion  was  and  I  looked 
for  the  wagon  again,  and  I  noticed  that  man  right  over 
there  (referring  to  the  defendant  Fielden)  by  the  wheel  of 
the  wagon,  with  a  revolver,  right  behind,  firing.  I  saw  one 
shot  go,  then  I  thought  it  was  time  to  draw  my  revolver, 
and  just  as  I  got  my  revolver  they  rushed  for  the  alley; 
that  was  a  little  south  of  the  wagon. 

"  Q.     Who  rushed  into  the  alley? 

"  A.  Well,  him  (Fielden),  and  about,  I  really  should 
judge,  about  twenty  more;  they  kept  firing  about  fifteen 
or  twenty  shots  after  they  started  to  run  in  the  alley." 

On  cross-examination    by  Mr.  Black   the  witness  testi- 


300 

fied   (Counsel  requests  defendant   Fielden   to   stand    up, 
and  he  does  so) : 

"  The  WITNESS:  That  is  the  man. 
"  Q.     You  recognize   Mr.  Fielden   as  the  man  whom 
you  saw  fire  and  who  ran  up  the  alley? 
"  A.     Yes,  sir;  ran  towards  the  alley. 
"  Q.     Towards  the  alley? 
"  A.     Yes.  sir." 

Officer  CHARGES  SPIERI.ING,  who  was  in  the  front 
rank  of  Lieut.  Quinn's  company  and  the  thirteenth  man 
west  of  the  east  sidewalk,  testified  (I,  341): 

"  Q.  Where  were  you  when  the  bomb  exploded? 

"  A.  I  was  facing  north. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  the  bomb  before  it  exploded? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  How  far  were  you  from  the  wagon  at  that  time? 

"  A.  About  ten  or  twelve  feet. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  any  man  making  a  speech  from  the 
wagon? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  What  happened  after  the  bomb  exploded — tell 
what  you  saw? 

"  A.  /  saw  Mr.  Fielden  get  off  of  the  wagon  and  fire 
one  shot. 

"  Q.  Where  was  he  standing,  with  reference  to  the 

wagon,  when  you  saw  the  shot  fired? 

"  A.  Behind  the  wagon,  on  the  sidewalk. 

"  Q.  In  which  direction  did  he  fire  the  shot? 

"  A.  West. 

"  Q.  Was  that  before  or  after  the  bomb  exploded? 

"  A.  They  seemed  to  come  pretty  near  together. 

"  Q.  Was  it  before  or  after,  if  you  can  tell? 

"  A.  I  think  it  was  a  little  before. 

"  Q.  Are  you  positive  that  the  pistol  shot  was  first, 
or  the  bomb? 

"  A.  I  think  the  pistol  shot  was  a  little  the  first. 

"  Q.  How  close  did  they  come  together,  as  you  heard 
the.n  ? 

"  A.  Well,  hardly  a  second  apart. 


301 

"Q.     What  happened  after  that? 

"  A.  I  pulled  out  my  pistol  and  I  fired  two  shots  at 
the  wagon,  at  the  crowd. 

"Then  what  did  you  do? 

"  A.  Then  I  turned  to  the  west  and  fired  three  shots 
at  the  crowd;  that  was  going  west. 

"  Q.  Did  you  notice  Fielden  after  he  fired  the  first 
shot? 

"A.  Yes.  I  saw  him  over  at  the  wagon  firing  just 
like  that  (indicating). 

"  Q.  After  the  shot  was  fired  did  you  pay  any  atten- 
tion to  him? 

"A.     No,  sir;  I  did  not." 

On  cross-examination  he  testified: 

"  Q.      How  many  shots  did  you  see  Fielden  fire? 
"  A.     One  shot." 

JOHN  WESSLER,  who  was  on  the  right  of  Lieut.  Bowler's 
company,  testified  (I,  250)  : 

"  We  marched  along  and  our  company  just  had  landed 
at  the  south  end  of  Crane's  alley;  I  was  standing  at  the 
lamp-post.  Sergt.  Moore  was  on  my  right.  *  *  * 
I  drew  my  revolver.  I  ran  north  on  the  street,  or  on 
the  sidewalk  next  to  Crane's  alley;  I  ran  probably  twenty 
or  thirty  feet  north  of  Crane's  alley,  and  when  I  got 
there  I  shot  probably  twice.  I  heard  the  order,  'fall 
in,'  in  the  rear  of  me,  just  where  I  left.  I  ran  back  to 
see  what  was  going  on,  and  when  I  got  to  this  wagon, 
the  same  wagon  that  the  speaker  was  on,  at  the  wheel,  at 
the  south  end  of  it — the  wagon  stood  next  to  the  curb 
lengthwise —and  at  the  middle  of  the  south  end  of  the 
wagon,  Mr.  Fielden  stood  there,  and  I  noticed  before  I 
got  there  a  man  who  would  not  stand  up,  and  he  -would 
shoot  into  the  -police  and  get  down  behind  the  ^vheel,  and  I, 
thinking  it  was  Capt.  Bonfield,  because  that  night  he 
wore  a  black  slouch  hat,  the  thought  struck  me,  and  I 
said  I  would  be  sure,  and  /  went  up  and  saw  that  Mr. 
Fielden  was  there,  and  he  got  up  a  second  time  and  shot 
into  the  police,  and  he  got  down  by  the  wheel  of  the 
wagon,  and  as  he  did  I  shot  him  and  he  fell  under  the 
wagon. 


302 

"  Q.     Did  you  lose  track  of  him  absolutely? 

"A.  Then  they  were  hollering,  'fall  in'  in  the  rear, 
and  I  ran  away  and  left  him,  and  we  got  orders  to  pick 
up  the  wounded,  and  we  did  so  and  we  took  them  to  the 
station." 

Stenner,  one  of  the  witnesses  for  the  defense,  was 
arrested  by  Officer  Foley  at  the  steps  of  Crane  Bros, 
while  the  firing  was  going  on.  He  afterwards  had  an 
examination  before  Magistrate  Scully.  An  attempt  was 
made  by  the  defense  to  impeach  the  testimony  of  Officer 
Wessler  by  showing  that,  at  that  examination  of  Stenner, 
he,  Wessler,  had  testified  that  he  could  not  identify  the 
man  that  he  saw  shooting  over  the  wagon.  This  attempt 
signally  failed,  as  appears  from  the  testimony  of  Justice 
Scully  (N,  155),  who  says  that  Wessler  at  that  time 
described  the  man  whom  he  saw  shooting  over  the  wagon 
as  a  large  man  with  whiskers  (a  description  answering 
the  description  of  Fielden),  and  said  he  thought  he  could 
identify  him  if  he  ever  saw  him  again. 

Counsel  for  plaintiffs  in  error  called  attention  to  the 
testimony  of  Freeman.  Freeman  testifies  positively  (K, 
42)  that  he  did  not  see  Felden  after  the  command  by  the 
officers  for  the  meeting  to  disperse.  If  that  is  so,  of 
course  he  did  not  .see  him  shoot. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  him  (Fielden)  withdraw  from  the 
wagon  (K,  47)? 

"  A.  My  mind  is  not  clear  on  that  at  all.  I  don't 
remember  anything  that  occurred  after  I  started  to  go  to 
the  officers.  The  thing  happened  so  quickly  that  nothing 
was  clear  to  me  beyond  the  movements  1  made  myself. 

"  Q.  At  the  time  you  were  crouching  down  there, 
while  this  firing  was  going  on,  down  opposite  the  wagon 
on  the  sidewalk  and  near  it,  did  you  see  any  shots  fired 
between  you  and  the  wagon? 


303 

"  A.  There  was  a  dense  smoke  there;  I  did  not  see  any 
shots  at  all. 

"Q.  How  near  were  you  to  the  platoon  of  police 
that  were  firing? 

"  A.  I  think,  perhaps,  I  was  ten  feet  in  front  of  them, 
and  about  to  the  right  from  six  to  eight  feet. 

"  Q.     There  was  smoke  all  around? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     You  saw  no  distinct  individual  firing? 

"  A.  I  saw  no  firing.  I  saw  two  officers  at  one  time 
with  their  revolvers  pointed  dangerously  close  at  me,  but 
as  to  seeing  actual  shooting  by  any  individual,  I  did  not 
see  any.  I scnu  jlashes. 

One  of  the  witnesses  cited,  in  the  brief  of  plaintiffs  in 
error  (page  17),  is  James  D.  Taylor.  We  wish  to  call 
attention  to  the  testimony  of  this  witness.  It  will  be  re- 
membered that  all  of  the  witnesses  in  the  case,  whether 
for  the  state  or  for  the  defendants,  agree  that  the  bomb 
was  thrown  just  at  the  time  Fielden  was  getting  down 
from  the  wagon,  and  exploded  just  as  he  got  onto  the 
ground.  Bearing  that  in  mind,  we  invite  attention  to  the 
testimony  of  Taylor  on  his  cross-examination  (L,  253) : 

"  Q.  Who  was  speaking  at  the  time  the  bomb  was 
thrown  ? 

"  A.  Nobody. 

"  Q.  Who  was  on  the  wagon  ? 

"  A.  Fielden. 

"  Q.  Are  you  certain  he  was  on  the  wagon  the  in- 
stant the  bomb  was  thrown  ? 

"  A.  He  had  just  closed  his  speech. 

"  Q.  Was  he  on  the  wagon  ? 

"  A.  He  was  coming  down  out  of  the  wagon. 

"  Q.  How  do  you  know  he  was  ? 

"  A.  Because  I  saw  him. 

"  Q.  You  were  looking  at  him  ? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Kept  your  eyes  on  him  ? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Not  mistaken  about  that  ? 


3<H 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     Did  he  have  any  revolver  in  his  hand  ? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     Positive  he  did  not  ? 

"A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     How  long  did  you  see  him  there  ? 

"  A.  I  saw  him  standing  between  the  police  and  the 
wagon  myself. 

"  Q.     Between  the  wagon  and  the  police  ? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     Which  side  of  the  wagon  ? 

"  A.     The  tail  end  of  the  wagon. 

"  Q.  Didn't  he  pull  out  his  revolver  after  he  got  down 
there  ? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     How  do  you  know  he  didn't  ? 

"  A.     Because  I  could  have  seen  him. 

"  Q.     How  long  did  you  look  at  him  there  ? 

"  A.  I  remember  the  last  time  I  looked  in  the  direc- 
tion he  first  stood;  that  was  after  the  bomb  was  thrown. 
He  was  down,  or  he  was  gone,  I  don't  know  which. 

"  Q.  Did  you  keep  your  eye  on  him  from  the  time  you 
saw  him  speaking  on  the  ivagon  until  the  bomb  exploded? 

«  A.     1  did. 

"  Q.     You  are  -positive  of  that? 

"A.     Yes;  I  am. 

"  Q.  You  did  not  take  your  eye  off  of  him  one  minute 
from  the  time  he  was  standing  on  the  wagon  speaking 
until  the  bomb  was  exploded? 

"  A.     Not  one  half  minute.. 

"  Q.     Not  a  half  minute  during  the  whole  time? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Did  you  have  your  eye  off  him  at  all  during'  that 
time  f 

"  A.  Because  he  -was  in  line  -with  the  -police,  and  I  ivas 
looking  across  the  street  and  had  to  see  him. 

"  Q.  You  sa-w  him  from  the  time  he  ivas  speaking, 
from  the  time  he  said,  '  zve  are  peaceable,"1  until  the  bouih 
was  exploded? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  And  during  that  time  he  did  not  have  any  re- 
volver in  his  hand? 


305 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     There  cannot  be  any  mistake  on  that? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Not  an  instant,  when  he  could  have  taken  oul  a 
revolver  from  his  pocket? 

"A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     Where  did  he  go  then? 

"  A.     The  Lord  only  knows,  I  don't  know. 

"  Q.  Didn't  you  keep  your  eye  on  him  after  that? 
You  say  the  Lord  only  knows? 

"A.  The  demoralization  was  such,  mind  you,  I  am 
sure  now  that  he  was  among  the  first  that  was  hit  with  the 
shell. 

"  Q.  The  demoralization  was  so  great  that  he  was 
amongst  the  first  that  was  hit  with  the  shell? 

"A.  Yes;  I  think  he  went  down,  and  after  that  I  did 
not  see  him. 

"  Q.      Where  did  you  say  he  went  down? 

"A.  /  think  he  went  down  -probably  in  front  of  the 
police. 

"  Q.  Where,  in  reference  to  the  wagon?  Where  did 
he  go  down,  with  reference  to  the  wagon? 

"  A.     Well,  he  was  a  little  west  of  the  wagon,  not  much. 

"  Q.  That  is  where  you  think  he  was  struck  by  the 
shell  and  went  down? 

"  A.     I  think  probably  he  was. 

"  Q.     What  do  you  mean  by  demoralization? 

"  A.  I  saw  that  the  middle  ranks  of  policemen  were 
demoralized.  I  saw  that,  and  I  know  another  thing.  I 
know  I  saw  one  boy  right  close  to  where  he  was  stand- 
ing. 1  saw  him  go  down — a  boy  that  was  standing  in 
front  there. 

"  Q.     But  you  did  not  see  Fielden  after  he  went  down? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.  You  feel  very  certain  he  was  west  of  the  wagon 
when  he  did  go  down? 

"  A.     I  think  he  was  west  a  little. 

"  Q.     And  was  demoralized   by  a  piece  of  the  bomb? 

"  A.     I  think  he  was." 

It  will  be  remembered  that  this  witness  stood  (page 
223) -.upon  the  north-west  corner  of  the  sidewalk  and  the 


306 

alley,  which  was  in  a  position  six  or  eight  feet  south  of 
the  wagon,  and  if  he  had  his  eye  upon  Field^n  at  the  time 
Fielden  jumped  from  the  wagon  up  to  the  time  of  the  ex- 
plosion of  the  bomb,  as  he  swears,  he  must  have  been 
standing  with  his  back  to  the  south  and  his  face  to  the 
north.  Notwithstanding  this  a  few  moments  (page  260) 
later  he  testified: 

"  Q.  At  the  time  you  saw  the  bomb  thrown  where 
were  you  standing? 

"  A.  I  was  standing  on  that  curb  of  the  sidewalk,  on 
the  north  side  the  alley. 

"  Q.     Where  was  the  bomb  thrown  from? 

"  A.     From  the  south-east  side. 

"  Q.  How  many  people  between  you  and  the  place 
from  which  the  bomb  was  thrown? 

"  A.     As  to  that  I  could  not  say. 

"  Q.     Were  there  few  or  many? 

"  A.     There  was  not  many. 

"  Q.  How  many  would  you  say  between  you  and  the 
man  who  threw  the  bomb? 

"  A.     I  could  not  say. 

"  Q.  Could  you  see  the  hand  of  the  man  that  threw 
the  bomb? 

"  A.  No,  sir;  the  first  time  I  saw  it  the  fuse  was 
burning. 

"  Q.  And  whether  it  was  a  policeman  who  threw  it 
or  not,  you  cannot  say? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     You  did  not  see  the  arm  of  the  man  who  threw  it? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     You  did  not  see  the  man  who  threw  it? 

"  A.     I  saw  nothing,  but  something  like  his  head. 

"  Q.  Where  was  the  man,  or  something  like  the  man's 
head,  that  you  saw;  where  was  he  standing? 

"  A.     He  was  standing  right  behind  those  boxes. 

"  Q.     North  or  south  of  the  boxes? 

"  A.     South  of  the  boxes, 

"  Q.     Anybody  between  you  and  that  man? 

«  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     How  many? 


307 

«  A.  I  don't  know;  I  did  not  count  them. 

"  Q.  Didn't  they  cut  off  your  sight  so  you  could  not 
see? 

«  A.  No. 

"  Q.  You  could  see  distinctly? 

"  A.  I  could  see  so  far  as  to  know  there  were  persons 
there. 

"  Q.  Could  you  see  distinctly,  so  far  as  to  know  he 
was  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb? 

"  A.  I  could  see  the  fact  that  the  man  did  throw  the 
bomb,  because  I  saw  when  the  bomb  first  arose;  I  saw 
the  light,  and  that  called  my  attention  to  it. 

"  Q.  How  long  did  you  look  at  that  man? 

"  A.  Not  long,  I  assure  you. 

"  Q.  Did  you  follow  the  blaze  through  the  air? 

"  A.  I  was  looking  at  the  blaze  more  than  I  was  at 
him. 

"  Q.  How  did  the  blaze  go?  What  sort  of  a  motion 
did  it  make? 

"  A.  It  made  a  circling  motion. 

"  Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  circling — that  is,  it  made 
an  arch? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  That  was  the  course  it  took? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Did  the  fuse  itself  have  any  motion? 

"  A.  No  more  motion  than  it  would  in  following  the 
bomb. 

"  Q.  Simply  straight  after  the  bomb? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Did  it  twist  around  any,  like  a  spiral? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  It  did  not  go  like  a  spiral? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Which  went  first,  the  bomb  or  the  fuse? 

"A.  Why,  of  course,  the  bomb. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  it,  or  are  you  simply  speaking  from 

general  principles,  that  it  must  have  gone  first? 

"  A.  I  saw  the  bomb  enough  to  know  it  was  a  round 
bomb. 

"  Q.  It  was  not  a  gas-pipe  bomb? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 


3o8 

"  Q.  Positive  it  was  not  a  gas-pipe  bomb? 

"  A.  Positive  of  that. 

"Q.  Round? 

"  A.  A  round  bomb. 

"  Q.  How  big  around  was  it? 

"  A.  Well,  I  guess  about  as  large  as  one  of  these  base 
balls. 

"  Q.  Could  you  tell  anything  about  the  color  of  it? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  it  was  round? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  Did  you  trace  it  from  where  you  first  saw  it  until 
it  landed? 

"  A.  'I  saw  it  go  right  down. 

"  Q.  Where  did  it  go? 

"  A.  Between  the  first  and  second  lines  of  police. 

"  Q.  How  many  lines  of  police  were  there? 

"  A.  I  cannot  tell  you  that. 

"  Q.  You  saw  two? 

"  A.  I  saw  them  all,  but  I  could  not  tell  how  many 
there  were. 

"  Q.  But  you  saw  two  lines  that  you  could  distinguish? 

"A.  Yes;  this  came  between  the  first  and  second. 

"  Q.  Did  it  fall  nearest  to  the  first  or  second? 

"  A.  I  could  not  tell;  it  fell  a  little  west  of  the  center 
of  the  street  and  between  those  two  lines,  as  near  as  I 
could  judge. 

"  Q.  What  happened  when  the  bomb  went  off,  to  the 
police? 

"  A.  A  terrible  demoralization,  I  assure  you." 

If  the  witness  saw  what  he  says  he  did,  he  must  have 
been  at  that  time  facing  south,  and  could  not  have  had  his 
eye  on  Fielden.  It  being  admitted  that  the  throwing  of  the 
bomb  and  its  explosion  and  Fielden's  jumping  down  from 
the  wagon  to  the  sidewalk  were  simultaneous,  it  follows 
necessarily  that  this  witness  lies  either  in  regard  to  what 
he  says  about  Fielden  or  in  regard  to  what  he  says  about 
the  bomb,  or,  as  is  probable,  as  to  both.  A  review  of  the 
testimony  of  this  witness,  which  is  so  often  cited  by  coun- 


309 

sel  for  plaintiffs  in  error,  will  show  that  he   is   absolutely 
unworthy  of  belief  on  any  subject. 

William  Snyder,  whose  evidence  is  quoted  by  them 
in  this  connection,  is  another  witness  unworthy  of  belief. 
He  was  an  anarchist,  a  member  of  the  American  group, 
a  friend  of  Parsons  and  Fielden,  was  on  the  wagon  at 
the  time  of  the  speaking,  and  one  of  the  most  enthusias- 
tic of  those  present,  and  was  under  indictment  for  con- 
spiracy at  the  time  of  testifying  in  this  case.  Certainly 
the  testimony  of  such  a  man  as  this  cannot  prevail  as 
against  that  of  reputable  men;  at  any  rate,  the  very 
strongest  that  can  be  said  for  it  is  that  it  is  to  be  consid- 
ered by  the  jury,  and  they  have  considered  it,  and 
stamped  it  as  a  lie. 

Four  other  witnesses,  Stenner  (Plaintiffs'  Abst.,  196), 
Messer  (P.  A.,  208),  Holloway  (P.  A.,  229-30),  Ingram 
(P.  A.,  297),  testified  that  they  did  not  see  Fielden  shoot. 
This  evidence  is  subject  to  the  same  objections  as  that  of 
some  of  the  preceding  witnesses,  and  is  in  its  nature 
merely  negative.  Fielden,  himself,  in  his  testimony  (M, 
319),  denied  that  he  fired  that  night  and  denied  that  he 
had  any  revolver  in  his  possession. 

With  reference  to  the  position  assumed  by  counsel  in 
their  brief,  that  nothing  was  said  at  the  coroner's  inquest 
about  Fielden's  having  fired  a  shot,  we  desire  to  say, 
first,  that  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  that  such  tes- 
timony was  not  given;  and  second,  if,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
such  evidence  was  not  given,  it  proves  nothing,  even  by 
implication,  for  the  coroner's  jury  met  the  day  after  the 
Haymarket,  at  a  time  when  many  of  the  witnesses  who 
have  testified  in  this  case  were  wounded,  and  some  of 
them  unconscious;  but  few  witnesses  were  present  at  that 


3io 

examination,  and,  as  any  one  who  knows  anything  about 
such  matters  is  aware,  all  of  the  facts  growing  out  of 
such  a  transaction  as  that  of  the  Haymarket  can  be 
gathered  together  only  after  a  long  space  of  time,  and 
with  a  vast  amount  of  labor. 

So  far  as  the  argument  based  upon  interviews  taking 
place  between  the  reporters  and  Fielden  on  the  day  of  the 
5th  of  May  is  concerned,  it  is  simply  puerile.  Whatever 
ability  reporters  may  have,  however  important  a  factor 
they  may  be  in  modern  civilization,  no  one  yet  has  ever 
assumed  or  even  thought  that  they  were  omniscient,  and 
the  fact  that  they  did  not  know  every  one  of  the  thou- 
sand and  one  incidents  at  the  Harmarket,  or  did  not  ask 
about  every  one  of  the  thousand  and  one  incidents,  within 
twenty-four  hours  after  its  occurrence,  proves  nothing, 
except  that  they  are  not  omniscient. 


(4.)     WHO    THREW    THE    BOMB,  AND    THE    POINT 
FROM   WHICH   IT   WAS   THROWN? 


MALVERN  M.  THOMPSON  (K,  287),  who  lived  at 
South  Peoria  street,  and  at  the  time  of  the  trial  was  em- 
ployed by  Mai  shall  Field  &  Co,,  was  present  during  a 
portion  of  the  time  at  the  Haymarket  meeting.  At  the 
time  of  that  meeting  he  was  in  the  grocery  business  at 
1  08  South  Desplaines  street.  About  half-past  7  he 
was  handed  a  "Revenge"  circular  on  Randolph  street; 
about  five  minutes  later  he  arrived  at  the  corner  of  Des- 
plaines and  Randolph  streets,  where  he  met  Mr.  Brazle- 
ton,  a  reporter  for  the  Inter  Ocean,  with  whom  he  talked 
for  about  fifteen  minutes,  and  asked  him  the  time  and 
learned  that  it  was  ten  minutes  to  8.  Just  then  the 


3" 

defendant  Schwab  came  along,  who  was  pointed  out  to 
him  by  Brazleton.  He  went  over  on  the  east  side  of  Des- 
plaines  street,  near  the  corner  of  Crane's  alley,  and 
stood  just  back  of  the  alley.  This  was  the  point  at  which 
the  meeting  was  called  to  order,  and  the  point  at  which 
the  front  line  of  the  police  stood  at  the  time  the  bomb  was 
thrown. 

"  Q.     Then  what  did  you  see? 

"  A.  Then  Spies  got  up  on  the  wagon  and  asked  for 
Parsons.  Parsons  did  not  respond.  He  then  got  down, 
and  two  men  walked  in  the  alley — that  is,  Schwab  and 
Spies;  in  the  alley  that  I  was  standing,  near  the  corner, 
at  the  back  of  Crane  Brothers'.  The  wagon  was  back  a 
little  further.  The  first  word  I  heard  between  them  was 
4  pistols.' 

"  Q.     Between  whomr* 

"A.  Between  Schwab  and  Spies.  The  next  word 
was  '  police.'  I  think  I  heard  '  police  '  twice,  or  *  pistols  ' 
twice;  one  or  the  other.  I  then  walked  a  little  nearer  the 
edge  of  the  alley,  and  just  then  Spies  said:  'Do  you 
think  one  is  enough,  or,  hadn't  we  better  go  and  get 
more?'  There  was  no  answer  to  that  that  I  could  hear. 
They  then  came  out  of  the  alley  and  walked  south  on 
Desplaines  street  to  Randolph,  and  west  on  the  north 
side  of  Randolph  to  Halsted,  and  cut  across  the  street 
and  went  over  to  the  south-west  corner  and  were  there 
about  three  minutes;  came  out  of  that  crowd  and  came 
back  again.  On  the  way  up  I  did  not  catch  much  of  the 
conversation,  but  on  the  way  back,  as  we  neared  Union 
street,  I  heard  the  word  'police  '  used  again;  just  then  I 
went  by  them  and  Schwab  said:  '  Now,  if  they  come 
we  will  give  it  to  them.'  Spies  replied  that  he  thought 
they  were  afraid  to  bother  with  them. 

"  Q.     They  were  what? 

"  A.  Afraid  to  bother  them;  and  then  they  came  on 
down  and  Spies — just  before  they  got  up  near  the  wagon 
they  met  a  third  party  and  they  huddled  right  together 
there  south  of  the  alley  (Crane's),  appeared  to  get  right 
in  a  huddle,  and  there  was  something  passed  between 
them;  what  it  was  I  could  not  see. 


312 

"  Q.     Between  whom? 

"  A.     Between  Spies  and  the  third  man. 

"  Q.  Look  at  that  picture  (handing  witness  a  cabinet 
picture  of  Schnaubelt)  and  see  if  that  resembles  the  man 
that  you  say  made  the  third  party? 

"  A.  (After  examining  the  picture.)  Yes,  1  think  that 
is  the  man. 

"  Q.     Well,  what  did  Spies  do  then? 

"Mr.  BLACK:  You  say  that  that  is  the  third  man,  do 
you? 

"A.  I  think  that  his  beard  was  a  little  longer  than 
this  picture. 

"  Q.  You  say  that  this  young  man  was  the  third 
man? 

"  A.     Yes;  this  is  the  picture  of  the  third  man. 

"  Spies  then  got  up  on  the  wagon  and  commenced  to 
make  a  speech. 

"  Mr.  GRINNELL  (Q.):  Did  you  see  the  third  man  after- 
wards that  evening? 

"  A.     I  saw  him  on  the  wagon. 

"  Q.  What  did  the  third  man  do  that  you  saw  in  that 
crowd? 

"  A.  Well,  whatever  they  gave  him,  I  don't  know 
what  it  was,  he  stuck  it  in  his  pocket  on  the  right-hand 
side,  and  Spies  got  up  on  the  wagon,  and  I  think  that  he 
got  up  right  after  him. 

"  Q.  Did  you  notice  anything  about  his  position,  the 
position  or  conduct  of  that  third  man  afterwards? 

"  A.     I  noticed  his  sitting  on  the  wagon. 

"  Q.     Did  you  notice  anything  about  his  appearance? 

"  A.  I  only  noticed  that  he  kept  his  hands  in  his 
pockets.  I  saw  him  there  for  probably  an  hour,  I  should 
say.  I  staid  there  until  Mr.  Fielden  just  commenced  to 
speak,  theR  I  left." 

The  witness  did  not  know  anything  about  the  bomb 
having  been  thrown  until  the  next  morning. 

On  cross-examination  (290)  witness  said  that  at  the 
time  of  the  meeting  he  was  in  the  grocery  business  for 
himself.  He  was  closed  out  by  the  sheriff.  At  the  time 
of  the  trial  he  was  in  the  hosiery  department  of  Marshall 


3*3 

Field  &  Co.;  that  he  had  worked  for  Marshall  Field; 
had  never  seen  any  of  the  men  before  that  night.  Schwab 
was  pointed  out  to  him  by  Mr.  Brazleton,  at  which  time 
he  was  going  north;  that  was  about  a  quarter  to  8. 
He  next  saw  him  a  quarter-past  8  when  he  was  with 
Spies  in  the  alley.  At  that  time  there  was  a  crowd  con- 
gregating there.  He  (witness)  was  standing  right  near 
or  alongside  of  the  alley,  just  north  of  the  alley,  standing 
against  the  building.  He  could  not  see  down  the  alley 
unless  he  turned  his  face  to  it.  The  first  time  he  saw 
Spies  was  when  he  got  up  on  the. wagon. 

"  Q.  Now,  were  you  specially  interested  in  knowing 
Schwab  and  Spies  at  that  time? 

"  A.  Not  specially.  I  was  not  specially  interested; 
just  only  had  a  mere  curiosity.  Spies,  when  he  got  up  on 
the  wagon,  inquired  for  Parsons;  was  there  a  minute  or 
so  only,  and  got  out  of  the  wagon  and  went  into  the  alley." 

At  that  time  witness  was  probably  three  feet  north  of 
the  alley,  and  then  moved  down  to  within  half  a  foot  of  it. 
Schwab  and  Spies  went  just  around  the  corner  of  the 
alley;  could  not  have  been  more  than  two  feet. 

"  Q.  You  could  not  see  them  then? 

"  A.  I  could  if  I  had  looked  down  the  alley. 

"  Q.  You  did  not  look? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  You  did  not  look  at  that  time,  either  then  or 
afterwards? 

"  A.  I  did  when  they  came  out." 

Witness  never  spoke  German;  never  heard  Schwab 
speak  German;  the  conversation  was  in  English.  The 
first  word  he  heard  was  "pistols"  and  then  "  police." 

"  Q,     How  long  were  they  in  there? 
"  A.     Probably  two  or  three  minutes. 
"  Q.     The  conversation  you  could  hear,  for  they  were 
near  enough  to  you? 


3H 

"  A.  I  just  caught  that  part,  and  when  I  drew  up  in 
front  of  the  alley  I  heard  them  ask,  <  Is  one  enough? ' 

"  Q.  What  did  they  say  besides  '  pistols '  and 
'police?' 

"  A.  They  said,  '  Do  you  think  one  enough,  or  had 
we  better  go  for  more? ' 

"  Q.     One  what? 

"  A.     I  don't  know. 

"  Q.     Who  said  that? 

"  A.     Spies  said  that  to  Schwab. 

"  Q.  They  were  not  talking  about  Schwab  going  out 
to  Deering's  to  make  a  speech  and  about  the  question  of 
whether  one  speaker  was  enough,  or  whether  they  should 
send  for  more? 

"  A.     Not  that  I  know  of. 

"  Q.  What  were  they  talking  about?  Did  you  hear 
from  the  conversation  what  they  were  talking  about? 

"  A.  1  did  not  learn;  no,  sir;  but  of  course  I  had  my 
own  opinion.  *  *  * 

"  Q.  Now,  then,  you  heard  no  words  spoken  in  Ger- 
man? 

"  A.     Some,  I  did. 

"  Q.     In  this  same  conversation? 

"  A.     I  did,  going  up  Randolph  street.     *     *      * 

"  Q.     Did  you  know  Mr.  Schwab's  voice  at  that  time? 

"  A.     No;  I  cannot  say  that  I  did  know  his  voice. 

"  Q.     Did  you  know  Mr.  Spies'  voice  at  that  time? 

"  A.  No,  only  from  what  I  heard  him  ask  on  the 
wagon. 

"  Q.  Did  you  know  it  enough  so  you  could  recognize 
his  voice? 

"  A.     Yes,  I  think  I  did. 

"  Q.     Which  one  said  '  revolvers  '? 

"  A.     I  think  it  was  Spies.     He  said  '  pistols.' 

"  Q.     Which  one  was  it  said  '  police?' 

"  A.     He  did. 

"  Q.     You  did  not  see  him  when  he  said  it? 

"  A.  No;  I  did  not  see  him.  I  was  not  looking  di- 
rectly at  him.  *  *  * 

"  Q.  How  long  was  it  after  they  went  into  the  alley 
and  went  out  of  sight  that  you  heard  this  conversation? 

"  A.     It  was  all  done  in  three  minutes,  I  should  judge. 


"  Q.  How  long  was  it  after  they  went  into  the  alley 
and  went  out  of  sight  that  you  heard  the  first  remark? 

«  A.     About  a  minute  and  a  half.     *     *     * 

"  Q.  You  had  no  particular  object  in  view  in  finding 
out  who  it  was  that  was  going  to  speak  that  night  on  that 
occasion? 

"  A.     Not  necessarily;  no  sir. 

"  Q.  You  were  not  employed  as  a  detective,  were 
you? 

"  A.     No,  sir;  just  out  of  mere  curiosity.     *     *     * 

"  Q.  As  they  started  (from  the  alley)  to  go  down 
south  you  trailed  after  them? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     You  were  following  them  pretty  close? 

''A.  Yes;  started  pretty  close,  and  in  fact,  in  one 
place  I  was  pretty  close  alongside  of  them. 

"  Q.     You  intended  to  hear  the  speeches,  of  course? 

« A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  Without  any  more  interest  than  just  to  look 
around? 

"  A.  Well,  I  thought  probably  at  that  time  the 
speeches  were  going  to  be  held  at  some  place  else. 

"  Q.  Had  you  heard  the  announcement  that  the  meet- 
ing was  going  to  be  held  anywhere  else? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     How  far  did  you  follow  them? 

"  A.  Down  on  Desplaines  to  Randolph.  It  was 
about  a  quarter  after  8. 

"  Q.     What  did  they  do  after  that? 

"  A.  They  walked  west  on  Randolph  street  to  Hal- 
sted. 

"  Q.     And  you  trailing  after  them  all  of  the  time? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     Anybody  else  go  besides  you? 

"  A.     Not  that  I  know  of. 

"  Q.  The  crowd  was  up  about  the  wagon,  wasn't  it? 
The  principal  crowd  was  at  the  wagon? 

"A.  No;  I  cannot  say  that  it  was.  The  principal 
crowd  was  on  Randolph  street. 

"  Q.  You  went  south  to  Randolph,  and  west  on  Ran- 
dolph to  Union,  some  blocks? 

"  A.     Two  blocks. 


316 

"  Q.  And  those  two  men  were  going  along,  and  you 
were  trailing  along  after  them? 

« A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  Part  of  the  time  beside  them  and  part  of  the  time 
ahead  and  past  them,  but  all  the  time  close  to  them? 

"  A.     Yes.         *         *         * 

"  Q.  When  you  got  down  there,  there  was  nobody 
there  except  probably  two  or  three  men? 

"  A.     Probably  twenty  or  thirty. 

"  Q.  Just  as  you  would  see  here  at  the  bridge  at  any 
moment — a  situation  like  that? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  No  wagons  or  dry-goods  boxes  0r  obstructions, 
were  there? 

"  A.     Not  that  I  saw. 

"  Q.     Did  they  see  you? 

"  A.     I  don't  know  as  they  did. 

"  Q.     Nothing  prevented  their  seeing  you? 

"  A.     Nothing  whatever. 

"  Q.  Now,  when  was  it  that  you  heard  the  next  con- 
versation with  them  after  you  started  trailing  after  these 
two  men? 

"  A.     It  was  near  Union  street. 

"  Q.     Where  is  that? 

"  A.     It  is  between  Desplaines  and  Halsted. 

"  Q.  That  was  after  you  had  gone  half  a  block  south 
and  a  whole  block  west? 

"A.  I  had  gone  two  blocks  west;  was  on  my  way 
back.  *  * 

"  Q.     Now,  what  was  it  they  said? 

"  A.  I  could  not  say  what  they  said  until  they  came  to 
Union  street,  and  then  I  crossed  right  by  them,  or  got 
near  them,  or  got  past  them. 

"  Q.  Was  it  light  at  that  time  so  that  they  could  see 
you? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     Had  the  same  view  of  them  as  they  had  of  you? 

"  A.     Exactly. 

"  Q.     What  was  the  first  thing  they  said? 

"  A.  The  first  thing  I  heard  him  (Schwab)  say  was, 
'  Now,  if  they  come,  we  will  give  it  to  them.' 

"  Q.  Schwab  said,  '  Now,  if  they  come,  we  will  give 
it  to  them.'  Why  didn't  you  tell  us  that  before? 


3'7 

«A.     I  did. 

"  Q.  You  told  that  before  here  in  your  direct  exami- 
nation? 

"  A.     That  is  what  I  said. 

"  Q.     If  who  came? 

"  A.     I  don't  know  who. 

"  Q.     That  they  would  give  it  to  who? 

"  A.     I  don't  know  who. 

"  Q.     Schwab  said  that? 

"  A.  Schwab  said  that;  and  Spies  said  he  didn't  think 
they  would  bother  him,  because  they  were  afraid.  *  *  * 

"  Q.  Then  you  say  it  was  when  you  were  going  by 
them? 

"  A.     Yes;  on  Union  street.     *     *     * 

"  Q.  Now,  you  were  sworn  as  a  witness  the  next  day 
before  the  coroner? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether  you  stated  one  word  in 
that  examination  about  overhearing  the  conversation  be- 
tween Spies  and  Schwab  at  Union  street? 

"  A.     I  did,  at  or  about  Union  street. 

"  Q.     You  swear  that  you  did? 

«  A.     I  did. 

"  Q.     Before  the  coroner? 

"  A.     If  I  didn't,  then— 

"  Q.  Never  mind  whether  you  did  or  didn't  now. 
Do  you  remember  that  you  did? 

"  A.     I  do.     *     *     * 

"  Q.  Now,  then,  what  was  the  next  thing  that  took 
place? 

"  A.  The  next  thing  was  that  they  met  the  third  man 
there  (about  five  feet  south  of  the  corner  of  Crane's 
alley).  They  met  a  third  man  there;  this  man  here  (re- 
ferring to  picture  of  Schnaubelt)." 

Witness  said  that  he  had  never  seen  Schnaubelt  before; 
had  seen  the  picture  before  the  trial;  it  was  shown  to  him 
by  Mr.  Furthmann. 

"  Q.  That  is,  he  handed  you  that  picture  and  asked 
you  whether  that  was  not  the  man  you  saw  with  Spies 
and  Schwab,  didn't  he? 

« A.     He  did  not.     *     *     * 


"  Q.  Who  was  it  that  gave  somebody  something  and 
who  was  the  somebody  that  received  it,  and  what  was  the 
something  that  was  given? 

"  A.  That  I  cannot  tell.  I  can  tell  that  it  was  Spies 
that  handed  this  man  (referring  to  picture  of  Schnaubelt) 
something,  and  this  man  put  it  into  his  pocket,  and  Spies 
got  upon  the  wagon  and  made  a  speech. 

"  Q.     Did  you  hear  the  word  bomb  at  that  time? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     Did  you  hear  '  police  '? 

"  A.     No,  'sir. 

"  Q.     Did  you  hear  *  knives  '  and  '  revolvers  '? 

"  A.     No,  sir. 

"  Q.     You  did  not  hear  anything? 

"  A.     No,  sir;  he  just  took  and  put  it  down. 

"  Q.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  a  chew  of  '  fine- 
cut'? 

"  A.     I  could  not  tell  you  that.     *     * 

"  Q.  Now,  this  third  man  that  you  say  received  some- 
thing and  put  it  in  his  pocket,  where  did  you  see  him 
next? 

"  A.     I  saw  him  on  the  wagon. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  Schwab  on  the  wagon? 

"A.     No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

"  Q.     How  long  did  Schnaubelt  stay  on  the  wagon  ? 

"  A.     Probably  an  hour. 

"  Q.     Did  he  leave  then? 

"  A.     I  cannot  say  whether  he  did  or  not." 

Harry  L.  Gilmer,  a  painter,  residing  at  40  North  Ann 
street,  testified  (K,  362)  that  he  was  at  the  Hay  market 
meeting  on  the  night  of  the  4th  of  May;  got  there 
about  quarter  to  10  o'clock.  Came  along  Desplaines 
street  to  the  corner  of  the  alley  (Crane's)  and  stood  be- 
tween the  lamp-post  and  the  wagon,  up  near  the  east  end 
of  the  wagon  for  a  few  minutes.  "  Fielden  was  speaking 
"  when  I  came  there.  Stayed  there  a  few  minutes  looking 
"  for  a  party  I  expected  to  meet,  and  stepped  back  into  the 
"alley  (Crane's). 


3*9 

"  Q.     What  did  you  see  when  you  stepped  in  there? 

"  A.  I  stepped  in  there  and  was  standing  looking 
around  for  a  few  minutes,  and  I  noticed  parties  in  conver- 
sation. 

"Q.     Where  were  they? 

"  A.  They  were  right  across  the  alley  when  I  first 
noticed  them. 

"  Q.     Which  side  of  the  alley? 

"  A.     On  the  south  side. 

"  Q.     What  were  those  people  doing? 

"  A.  They  were  standing  holding  a  conversation  there. 
Somebody  in  front  of  me,  out  on  the  edge  of  the  side- 
walk there,  said:  'Here  come  the  police.'  There  was  a 
sort  of  natural  rush  looking  to  see  the  police  come  up; 
there  was  a  man  came  from  the  wagon  down  to  the 
parties  that  were  standing  on  the  south  side  of  the  alley; 
he  lit  a  match  and  touched  it  off,  something  or  other;  it 
was  not  quite  as  big  as  that,  I  think  (indicating) ;  the 
fuse  commenced  to  fizzle,  and  he  gave  a  couple  of  steps 
forward  and  tossed  it  over  into  the  street. 

"  Q.     How  did  he  do  it?     What  was  his  manner? 

"  A.     If  your  honor  will  excuse  me  I  will  illustrate. 

"  The  COURT:  You  can  illustrate  the  motion. 

"A.  He  was  standing  in  this  direction  (indicating); 
the  man  that  lit  the  match  came  on  this  side  of  him,  and 
the  two  or  three  of  them  stood  together,  and  he  turned 
around  with  it  in  his  hand;  took  two  or  three  steps  that 
way,  and  tossed  it  that  way  over  in  the  street. 

"  Q.     Do  you  know  who  it  was  that  tossed  that  fizzling 
thing?     Look  at  that  photograph  (handing  witness  photo- 
graph of  Schnaubelt)  and  state. 
"  (Objected  to.) 

"The  COURT:  Describe  the  man  that  you  saw  throw 
that  fizzing  thing  into  the  street  that  night? 

"  Mr.  GRINNELL:  Do  you  know  the  man? 

"  A.  I  have  seen  him.  I  knew  him  by  sight.  I  have 
seen  him  several  times  at  meetings,  at  one  place  and 
another  in  the  city. 

"  Q.     You  don't  know  his  name? 

"  A.     I  do  not. 

"  Q.     Describe  him? 

"  A.     He  was  a  man  about  five  feet  ten  inches  high, 


320 

somewhat  full-chested,  and  had  a  light  or  sandy  beard, 
not  very  long.  He  was  full-faced  here,  his  eyes  set  some- 
what back  in  his  head;  I  should  think  he  wa§  a  man  that 
would  probably  weigh  180  pounds,  perhaps,  judging 
from  the  appearance  of  the  man. 

v  Q.  What  kind  of  clothes  did  he  wear,  if  you  noticed? 
What  kind  of  a  hat? 

"  A.  I  could  not  say,  the  kind  of  hat,  whether  it  was 
a  soft  hat,  one  of  those  felt  hats,  or  whether  it  was  a  stiff 
hat.  My  impression  is,  his  hat  was  dark — brown  or 
black. 

"  Q.  You  may  look  at  that  photograph  (Schnau- 
belt's)  and  state  what  is  the  resemblance? 

"  (Objected  to;    objection  overruled;    exception    by 
defendant.) 

"  Q.     You  have  seen  the  photograph  before? 

"  A.     I  have,  sir. 

"  Q.  What  do  you  say  as  to  whether  or  not  that  is 
the  man? 

"  A.  I  say  that  is  the  man  that  threw  the  bomb  out 
of  the  alley. 

"  Q.  How  many  men  were  standing  in  that  group  at 
the  time  that  the  bomb  was  lighted  and  thrown? 

"A.  Well,  there  was  quite  a  number  in  the  alley;  a 
good  many  people  standing  around  in  the  alley;  parties 
that  stood;  those  parties  were  four  or  five;  stood  to- 
gether there. 

"  Q.  Do  you  know  the  man?  You  say  that  some- 
body came  from  the  wagon  towards  the  group? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     Describe  that  man.     Is  it  any  of  the  defendants? 

"  A.     That  is  the  man  right  there  (pointing  to  Spies). 

"  Q.     Spies? 

"  A.     Yes. 

***** 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  any  of  the  defendants  in  the  alley 
at  that  time? 

"  A.  That  man  that  sits  over  there  is  one  of  the  par- 
ties (pointing  to  defendant  Fischer). 

"  Q.     Fischer? 

"  A.     Fischer. 

"  Q.     Are  you  certain  of  that? 


32I 

"  A.     I  think  I  be. 

"  Q.  What  did  you  do,  then,  after  the  bomb  was 
thrown?  What  did  these  parties,  that  you  saw  in  this 
attitude  and  manner — what  did  they  do? 

"  A.     They  immediately  left  through  the  alley." 

On  cross-examination,  he  testified  (370-3)  that  on  the 
second  or  third  day  after  after  the  Haymarket  meeting, 
he  told  several  persons  that  he  thought  he  could  identify 
the  person  who  threw  the  bomb,  if  he  should  ever  see 
him  again,  and  the  next  day  after  that  he  told  it  to  the 
officers. 

"Q.  You  told  Officer  Bonfield  in  that  conversation 
just  what  you  have  told  here? 

"  A.     Tthink  I  did. 

*  *  *  *  # 

"  Q.  How  far  did  you  step  down  the  alley,  when  you 

turned  around  to  go  back  in  the  alley? 

"A.  I  think  it  was  about  eight  feet  from  the  corner 
of  Crane's  building. 

"Q.  On  the  north  side?. 

"  A.  I  was  on  the  north  side. 

"  Q.  Where  was  this  group  of  men? 

"  A.  Right  across  the  alley. 

"  Q.  On  the  south  side? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  It  was  light  in  the  alley? 

"  A.  The  lamp  was  burning  on  the  corner  of  the  alley 

at  that  time. 

"  Q.  It  shined  right  down? 

"A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  You  could  see  them  distinctly? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  See  their  countenances? 

"A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  They  could  see  yourself? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  How  far  were  they  down  the  mouth  of  the  alley? 

"  A.  About  the  same  distance,  eight  or  nine  feet. 

"  Q.  Did  you  hear  them  talking? 

"  A.  I  heard  them  talking. 


322 

"Q.  What  did  they  say? 

"  A.  I  could  not  tell  you. 

"  Q.  Couldn't  you  understand? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"  Q.  Were  they  speaking  English? 

"  A.  No,  sir. 

"Q.  Were  they  speaking  in  German? 

"  A.  Yes. 

"  Q.  You  say  that  at  the  time  Mr,  Spies  is  the  man 
that  came  with  the  match? 

"  A.  The  man  that  came  from  the  wagon  down  in  the 
alley. 

"  Q.  Had  they  moved  their  position  from  where  they 
stood  before  the  match  was  lighted? 

"  A.     They  stood  there  in  the  group  together. 

"  Q.  Had  they  moved  their  positions?  That  is,  had 
they  gone  out  on  the  sidewalk  before  the  bomb  was 
lighted,  down  the  alley  on  the  south  side? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     You  were  close  to  the  north  side? 

"  A.  I  stood  across  the  alley,  and  stood  right  behind 
them. 

"  Q.     At  the  time  the  match  was  lighted  or  before  that? 

"  A.  Before  the  man  came  from  the  wagon  I  stepped 
across  the  alley  and  was  standing  there  on  the  north  side 
of  the  alley. 

"  Q.     How  near  to  this  knot  of  men  there? 

"  A.     Perhaps  three  or  four  feet. 

"  Q.  Were  you  standing  on  the  west  or  the  east  of 
them? 

"  A.     I  was  standing  to  the  east  of  them. 

"  Q.  Then  you  were  further  in  the  alley  than  they 
were? 

"  A.     I  was  further  in  the  alley  at  that  time. 

"  Q.  After  you  went  into  the  alley  and  just  before  the 
explosion  of  the  bomb,  how  many  men  did  you  see  get  off 
of  the  wagon  at  the  hind  end? 

"  A.  I  don't  know.  I  saw  one  or  two,  I  think,  get  off 
the  wagon.  I  think  one  of  them  got  right  over  the  hind 

wheel  and  jumped  down  onto  the  sidewalk. 

*  *  *  *  * 


323 

"  Q.  At  the  time  the  bomb  was  thrown,  or  what  you 
supposed  to  be  the  bomb,  the  man  who  threw  it  turned 
around,  facing  the  police,  didn't  fie? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  Did  he  do  anything  more  than  turn  around 
toward  the  police? 

"  A.  Yes,  he  made  one  or  two  steps  towards  the 
sidewalk. 

"  Q.    Just  one  or  two  steps? 

"A.     He  might  have  made  three;  I  am  not  positive. 

"  Q.  Now,  at  the  time  the  bomb  was  lighted  he  was 
from  eight  to  ten  feet  down  the  alley,  from  the  mouth  of 
the  alley? 

«« A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     And  near  the  south  side? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  He  took  one  or  two  steps  and  then  threw  the 
bomb? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.  So,  then,  at  the  time  he  threw  the  bomb  he  was 
still  in  the  alley  and  not  on  the  sidewalk? 

"  A.  He  was  just  somewhere  about  the  edge  of  the 
sidewalk. 

"  Q.     That  is  about  the  end  of  the  alley? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     Which  way  did  the  bomb  go? 

"A.     It  went  in  a  westerly  direction. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  it  alight? 

«  A.     I  didn't. 

"  Q.  Did  you  see  the  fuse  curling  in  the  air  until  it  did 
alight,  or  until  it  got  near  the  ground? 

"  A.  I  saw  it  as  it  went  up  that  way  and  started 
down. 

"  Q.     Spies  was  there  at  that  time? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     He  had  lighted  the  fuse — this  man? 

"  A.  Immediately  afterwards  the  two  parties  of  them 
went  through  the  alley. 

"  Q.  At  the  time  the  bomb  was  thrown  Mr.  Spies 
was  there,  having  lighted  the  fuse? 

"  A.     He  was  there  a  few  seconds  before  that  time. 

*'  Q.     A  few  seconds  before  that  time? 


324 

"  A.  Before  the  bomb  was  thrown  up  in  the  air. 

"  Q.  When  the  bomb  was  thrown  was  Mr.  Spies 
there? 

"  A.  He  was  there. 

"Q.  You  noticed  his  high  cheek-bones,  didn't  you? 

"A.  I  didn't  say  anything  about  Spies'  cheek-bones; 
I  said  the  man  that  threw  the  bomb." 

The  testimony  of  Gilmer  as  to  the  place  from  which 
the  bomb  was  thrown  and  the  man  who  threw  it  is  posi- 
tively contradicted  by  that  of  John  Burnett,  a  witness  in- 
troduced by  the  defense  (M,  483,  et  seg.),  who  testified 
that  he  saw  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb;  that  the  man 
who  threw  it  was  in  front  of  Burnett  at  the  time,  was 
about  Burnett's  size;  that  it  was  thrown  from  about 
thirty-eight  feet  south  of  the  alley,  a  little  bit  north  of 
west.  On  cross-examination  he  said  forty-five  feet  south 
of  the  allev.  He  was  shown  a  picture  of  Schnaubelt, 
and  was  asked  if  he  recognized  that  as  the  man  who 
threw  the  bomb,  and  answered,  "  I  guess  not." 

A  great  mass  of  evidence  was  introduced  in  the  case 
as  to  the  position  from  which  the  bomb  was  thrown,  the 
witnesses  differing  in  their  statements,  varying  from  the 
north  side  of  Crane's  alley  to  forty-five  feet  south  of  the 
alley.  The  evidence  in  the  case  is  (K,  226)  that  the 
bomb  fell  a  few  feet  north  of  the  south  line  of  the  alley, 
a  little  to  the  west  of  the  center  of  the  street.  The  road- 
bed of  the  street  was  forty-eight  feet  wide.  (I,  4.)  Bur- 
nett says  that  the  bomb  went  a  little  north  of  west.  If 
that  were  so  it  could  not  have  been  thrown  from  the  posi- 
tion in  which  he  says  it  was,  and  land  in  the  place  where 
it  did  land  ;  and  with  reference  to  his  statement  we  desire 
to  call  attention  to  the  statement  of  Heinemann,  the  re- 
porter, who  says  (K,  243)  that  at  the  time  the  bomb 


325 

exploded  he  was  on  the  east  side  of  Desplaines  street 
between  Crane's  alley  and  Randolph  street,  about  half 
way.  The  distance  from  Crane's  alley  to  Randolph 
street  is  ninety  feet  (I,  4).  That  would  put  Heinemann 
about  forty-five  feet  south  of  the  alley,  and  at  or  at  least 
within  about  seven  feet  of  the  point  from  which  Burnett 
says  the  bomb  came.  Heinemann  says,  "I  saw  the  bomb 
"raise  out  of  the  crowd  and  fall  among  the  police.  That 
"is,  I  did  not  distinguish  the  bomb,  but  I  saw  the  burning 
"  fuse. 

"  Q.  From  what  locality  on  the  sidewalk  with  refer- 
ence to  the  alley  that  runs  into  Crane's  was  it  that  you 
saw  this  bomb  raising  out  of  the  crowd  ? 

"  A.  It  was  very  nearly  the  south-east  corner  of  the 
alley." 

That  is  just  about  the  place  that  Gilmer  puts  it.  If  the 
bomb  had  risen  within  seven  feet  of  Heinemann,  he  cer- 
tainly would  have  seen  it.  In  this  case  no  attack  can  be 
made  upon  Mr.  Heinemann;  he  is  a  reputable  gentleman. 
Certainly  is  not  prejudiced  against  the  defendants,,  for  he 
himself  has  been  a  socialist,  a  member  of  some  of  their 
organizations,  and  only  left  it  about  two  years  previous, 
when,  as  the  evidence  shows,  Johann  Most  visited  this 
city  and  violent  methods  began  to  be  agitated. 

Officer  FOLEY,  who  was  in  Bowler's  company,  which 
was  the  second  column,  and  who  stood  about  two  and 
one-half  feet  from  the  lamp-post,  says  (I,  272)  that  he 
saw  the  bomb  and  its  course  through  the  air;  "it  was 
"  coming  from  the  north-east  where  I  stood." 

"  Q.  Was  it  still  going  up,  or  had  it  begun  to  fall 
when  you  saw  it? 

"  A.     It  was  going  up,  sir. 

He  at  that  time  was  a  few  feet  south  of  the  south  line 
of  the  alley. 


326 
Officer  WESSLER,  who  stood  by  Foley's  side,  says  (I, 


"  I  was  standing  at  the  lamp-post.  We  came  to  a  halt 
there.  Capt.  Ward  went  over  to  the  speaker.  Fielden 
was  on  the  wagon,  and  he  (Ward)  says,  '  I  command  you 
in  the  name  of  the  state  to  disperse  peaceably.'  Fielden 
turned  on  the  wagon,  and  says,  «  We  are  peaceable.'  He 
had  not  hardly  the  word  peaceable  out  of  his  mouth  when 
I  saw  something  a  little  mite  south  of  where  he  got  off  of 
the  wagon;  it  was  in  the  rear  of  the  wagon  towards 
Crane's  building;  that  had  struck  the  ground;  it  struck  on 
the  left  of  our  company  and  on  the  right  of  Lieut.  Stan- 
ton.  It  did  not  take  a  minute,  probably  half  a  minute 
when  it  went  off.  I  saw  it  flying  through  the  air." 

On  cross-examination  he  says  (page  233)  that  he  stood 
right  at  the  south-east  corner  of  the  alley,  right  at  the 
lamp-post.  He  says  (page  275)  : 

'«  Q.     Did  it  pass  over  your  head? 

"  A.     It  kind  of  went  something  like  that  (indicating). 

"Q.  And  it  was  nearly  directly  over  your  head  when 
you  saw  it? 

"  A.     Not  directly. 

"  Q.     At  what  angler 

"A.  I  am  not  sure,  because  I  probably  looked  at  it 
like  that  (indicating). 

"  Q.     How  far  was  it  away  from  you,  do  you  think? 

"  A.     I  could  not  say;  probably  ten  feet. 

"  Q.     How  high  up  in  the  air  do  you  think  it  was? 

"  A.     Ten  feet  up  in  the  air  is  what  I  mean. 

"Q.  Do  you  remember  whether  you  looked  a  little  to 
the  north  or  a  little  to  the  west  when  you  saw  it? 

"  A.  I  could  not  say,  because  I  did  not  pay  attention 
to  it;  I  thought  it  was  something  they  were  trying  to 
scare  us  with. 

"  Q.     You  simply  saw  it  in  the  air? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"Q.     You  don't  mean  that  you  saw  it  when  it  started? 

"  A.     I  know  about  what  direction  it  came. 

"  Q.     You  say  you  saw  it  about  over  your  head? 

"  A.     I  think  that  is  all." 


327 

From  the  position  in  which  these  two  witnesses  stood 
at  the  time,  facing,  as  they  were,  the  north,  and  being 
about  on  the  south  line  of  the  alley,  they  could  not  have 
possibly  seen  the  bomb  in  the  air  if  it  had  been  thrown 
from  about  thirty-eight  teet  south  of  the  alley. 

Lieut.  STANTON,  who  was  in  the  second  column  on 
the  left,  testified  (I,  216):  "  I  came  to  a  halt,  probably 
"  it  was  three  or  four  or  five  seconds,  may  be,  in  reference 
"  to  the  shell.  I  came  to  a  halt  about  five  seconds  when 
"  I  saw  the  shell  come  over  and  fall  about  four  feet  from 
"  where  I  stood. 

"  Q.     On  which  side  of  you? 

"  A.     On  the  left  side  of  me. 

****** 

"  Q.  In  reference  to  the  alley  (page  219)  at  Crane 
Brothers',  where  was  your  company,  supposing  this  to  be 
the  alley  here  (indicating),  here  is  the  Desplaines  street 
station  (indicating),  about  how  many  feet  do  you  think, 
you  stood  from  that  alley? 

"  A.     I  think  I  stood  about  the  alley. 

"  Q.     In  the  street  somewhere? 

"  A.     In  the  street. 

"  Q.     On  the  left  of  Lieut.  Bowler's  company? 

"  A.     Lieut.  Bowler  was  on  my  right. 

"  Q.     You  were  on  the  .left-hand  side  of  the  street? 

"  A.     I  was  about  the  middle  of  the  street. 

"  Q.  Where  was  the  shell  when  you  first  saw  it 
(220)? 

"  A.     In  the  air. 

"  Q.     Where,  in  reference  to  yourself? 

"  A.     It  was  about  over — very  near  over  my  head. 

"  Q.     From  what  direction  did  it  come,  if  you  know? 

"  A.     From  the  east. 

"  Q.     Where  in  reference  to  the  alley? 

"  A.     I  think  a  little  north  of  the  alley. 

"  Q.     Did  you  see  the  shell? 

«  A.     I  did." 

This  witness,  as  the  evidence  shows,  had  been  in  the 


328 

navy,  was  familiar  with  shells,  knew  that  this  was  a  shell 
when  he  saw  it  in  the  air  and  called  the,  attention  of  the 
officers  to  that  fact,  and  certainly  is  as  capable  of  judging 
the  direction  in  which  it  was  moving  as  any  one  present 
on  that  night.  Moreover,  it  would  have  been  impossible 
for  him  to  have  seen  it  while  it  was  in  the  air  if  it  had 
come  from  the  position  indicated  by  Burnett.  Officer 
Haas,  who  at  that  time  was  standing  in  the  center  of  the 
street,  near  the  speaker's  wagon,  testifies  (K,  252)  that 
he  saw  the  bomb  in  the  air;  that  it  seemed  to  him  to  come 
from  the  east  side  of  Desplaines  street.  "  I  should  say 
"  between  five  and  six  feet  from  the  corner  of  the  alley, 
"  south  of  the  corner;  there  was  quite  a  number  of  boxes 
"  piled  up  on  the  sidewalk  south  of  the  alley,  and  from 
"  the  direction  I  saw  the  bomb  come  I  should  say  it  was 
"  half  way  between  the  alley  and  the  boxes." 

PAUL  C.  HULL,  a  reporter  for  the  Daily  News,  who 
was  standing  upon  the  stairway  at  the  north-west  corner 
of  Randolph  and  Desplaines  streets,  testified  (K,  124) 
that  the  bomb  seemed  to  come  from  about  fifteen  or 
twenty  feet  south  of  Crane's  alley. 

Of  the  witnesses  for  the  defense,  Barton  Simondson 
testified  (L,  71)  that  he  was  standing  upon  the  stairway 
on  the  opposite  side  of  the  street,  and  that  the  bomb 
seemed  to  come  from  about  twenty  feet  south  of  Crane's 
alley. 

LUDWIG  ZELLER  says  (L,  149)  that  it  came  from  six, 
eight  or  ten  feet  south  of  the  lamp  and  moved  north- 
westerly. This  witness,  who  was  himself  a  socialist,  and 
who  lived  at  54  West  Lake  street  (Greif's  Hall),  which 
fact  of  itself  speaks  volumes,  testified  positively  that  as 
the  bomb  went  through  the  air,  it  went  fuse  first. 


329 

FREDERICK  LIEBEL  said  (L,  201)  it  came  from  about 
half  way  between  the  alley  and  Randolph  street. 

JAMES  D.  TAYLOR  (L,  230),  whose  testimony  we  have 
heretofore  commented  upon  as  to  this  very  point,  testifies 
that  he  saw  the  bomd  thrown  from  somewhere  between 
twenty  and  forty  feet  south  of  the  alley. 

WILLIAM  URBAN  testified  (L,  344)  that  it  came  from 
fifteen  to  eighteen  feet  south  of  the  lamp-post. 

AUGUST  KRUMM  (L,  415)  reasons  that  it  must  have 
started  about  twenty  feet  south  of  the  alley,  and  says 
that  it  did  not  come  from  south  of  the  alley. 

WILLIAM  ALBRIGHT  (L,  493)  says  he  was  with 
Krumm,  and  that  the  bomb  was  not  thrown  from  the 
alley  where  they  stood. 

GEORGE  KOEHLER  (L,  508)  is  alliidea  to  in  the 
plaintiffs'  brief,  but  it  is  very  apparent,  upon  examining 
his  evidence  entire,  knows  nothing  about  where  the  bomb 
came  from  or  in  what  direction  it  wentfj'  for  if  his  state- 
ment means  anything  it  means  that  the  bomb  was  thrown 
from  the  east  sidewalk  to  the  north-west  corner  of  Des- 
plaines  and  Randolph  streets. 

The  witnesses  who  testified  for  the  defense  upon  this 
point  are  the  same  witnesses  who  testified  for  them 
upon  the  other  disputed  questions  of  fact,  and  the  same 
observations  as  to  the  value  of  their  testimony  are  appli- 
cable here. 

MICHAEL  SCHWAB,  one  of  the  defendants,  testified 
(N,  i )  that  on  the  night  of  the  4th  of  May  he  was  at 
a  meeting  of  the  American  group  at  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung 
office  when  a  telephone  message  was  received  from  Deer- 


330 

ing's  (a  manufacturing  establishment  on  the  north  side  of 
the  city),  asking  for  Mr.  Spies  to  make  a,  speech  there, 
because  he  understood  German  and  English;  that  he  left 
the  meeting  and  went  to  the  Haymarket  to  see  if  he  could 
find  Spies,  who  could  speak  in  both  languages;  that  he 
went  to  the  Haymarket,  where  he  met  his  brother-in-law, 
Rudolph  Schnaubelt,  and  had  a  conversation  with  him; 
that  he  did  not  see  Spies;  took  a  car  and  came  back  to 
the  center  of  the  city  and  then  went  to  Deering's,  where 
he  made  a  speech.  He  denied  that  he  entered  the  mouth 
of  Crane's  alley  and  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Spies 
there,  or  that  he  walked  in  company  with  Spies  on  Ran- 
dolph street  from  the  corner  of  Desplaines  to  Union  and 
back  again,  and  also  denied  that  he  met  Spies  in  company 
with  Schnaubelt. 

Spies  in  his  evidence  (N,  17  et  seq.}  testified  that  he 
called  the  meeting  to  order,  as  Thompson  stated,  and 
asked  for  Parsons;  denied  that  he  had  seen  Schwab  that 
night  at  the  Haymarket;  that  he  went  into  the  alley  with 
him,  or  that  he  had  any  of  the  conversation  with  Schwab 
which  was  narrated  by  Thompson;  that  after  calling  for 
Parsons  he  got  down  from  the  wagon  and,  in  company 
with  his  brother  Henry,  one  Lechner  and  Schnaubelt,  went 
to  find  Parsons;  that  he  went  to  Randolph  street,  west  on 
Randolph  street  to  Union  and  almost  to  Halsted,  but  that 
seeing  a  few  people,  probably  twenty  or  twenty-five,  there 
and  not  finding  Parsons,  he  returned;  he  said  that  as  he 
and  Schnaubelt  walked  along  Randolph  street  they  con- 
versed in  German,  but  also  denied  that  he  had  given  any- 
thing to  Schnaubelt  at  the  place  indicated  by  Thompson ; 
he  testified  to  having  made  a  speech  practically  to  the 
same  effect  as  that  set  out  in  the  testimony  of  the  witnesses 
hereinbefore  cited.  While  Fielden  was  speaking  the  police 


came  up;  that  he  was  on  the  wagon  when  the  command 
to  disperse  was  given,  and  was  about  to  reply  to  it  when 
some  one  in  the  crowd  asked  him  to  step  down,  and  that 
a  man  named  Lechner  and  his  brother,  Henry  Spies,  as- 
sisted him  in  dismounting;  that  just  as  he  got  upon  the 
sidewalk  the  bomb  exploded;  he  heard  the  detonation 
and  supposed  that  the  police  had  opened  up  on  the  crowd 
with  cannon,  whereupon  he  went  to  Zepf 's  Hall;  he  says 
it  is  singular,  but  he  did  not  think  it  was  a  bomb,  and  he 
also  says  that  while  he  had  been  in  the  habit  of  carrying 
a  revolver  to  protect  himself,  as  the  revolver  was  heavy 
he  "  very  singularly  "  that  night  left  it  with  a  friend  of 
his  named  Stauber,  and  did  not  have  it  at  the  time  of  the 
Haymarket  meeting. 

Spies  claims  that  he  did  not  go  through  Crane's  alley 
after  leaving  the  wagon,  but  the  morning  after  his  arrest, 
in  the  conversation  he  had  with  James  Bonfield,  he  said 
(I,  350)  that  after  getting  off  the  wagon  he  went  in  the 
east  alley  (Crane's)  and  came  out  on  Randolph  street. 
Moreover,  he  denies  that  he  saw  Schwab  or  had  any  con- 
versation with  him  at  the  Haymarket,  but  in  the  interview 
which  Knox,  the  reporter,  had  with  him  shortly  after  his 
arrest  (J,  297),  he  said  that  he  did  not  want  to  go  to  the 
Haymarket  meeting,  and  when  he  got  there  he  did  not 
want  to  make  a  speech.  He  said  that  he  told  Schwab  so. 
Spies  was  at  the  Haymarket  meeting  the  whole  of  the 
evening.  Schwab  was  at  the  meeting  in  the  early  part 
of  the  meeting,  and,  as  he  himself  testifies,  went  there  for 
the  express  purpose  of  seeing  Spies.  And  Spies'  state- 
ment made  to  Knox  shows  that  he  and  Schwab  did  have 
a  conversation,  and  to  that  extent  corroborates  Thomp- 
son. 


TIMOTHY  McKEOUGH,  a  police  officer,  says  (K,  174) 
that  he  heard  Spies  call  the  meeting  to  .order,  and  ask 
if  Parsons  was  there;  he  then  said  that  he  would,  find 
him;  some  one  said,  "Let  us  pull  the  wagon  around  on 
"  Randolph  street  and  hold  the  meeting  there,"  to  which 
Spies  replied,  "  No,  that  might  stop  the  street  cars."  Spies 
then  started  away,  and  the  witness  followed  him  as  far  as 
the  corner.  "  There  was  a  man  with  him  whom  I  think 
"  was  Schwab;  I  am  not  very  sure,  because  I  did  not  pay 
"  much  attention  to  anybody  except  Spies  at  that  time ; 
"in  about  five  minutes  he  returned;  when  I  got  back  he 
"  was  addressing  the  meeting." 

On  cross-examination  he  says  that  he  saw  Schab  there 
in  the  early  part  of  the  evening;  lost  sight  of  him  some- 
wheres  in  the  vicinity  of  half-past  8. 

"  Q.     Where  was  Schwab  when  you  saw  him  last? 

"  A.  The  last  I  saw  of  Schwab  he  was  talking  to 
Parsons  at  the  side  of  the  wagon. 

"  Q.  Had  you  seen  Schwab  on  the  wagon  at  any 
time? 

"  A.  He  got  on  the  wagon,  I  think,  before  the  meet- 
ing started,  and  tapped  Spies  on  the  shoulder,  and  said 
something  to  him. 

"  Q.     Then  Spies  called  the  meeting  to  order? 

"A.  No;  then  Spies  got  down  off  the  wagon  and 
started  away  to  find  Parsons." 

EDGAR  E.  OWEN  testified  (K,  202): 

"  I  walked  on  east  and  met  the  mayor. 

':  Q.  Did  you  see  any  of  the  other  defendants  at  that 
time?"  (About  half-past  8.) 

"  A.  I  was  standing  at  the  corner  of  Randolph  and 
Desplaines  streets,  a  few  minutes  after  I  met  the  mayor, 
and  Schwab  came  up  and  almost  ran  into  the  mayor  be- 
fore he  saw  him.  Immediately  upon  seeing  him  Schwab 
*urned  about  and  -went  north  on  Desplaines  street" 


333 

WILLIAM  H.  FREEMAN,  a  reporter,  in  his  testimony 
says  (K,  42): 

"  Q.  Who  did  you  see  upon  the  wagdri  whoni  you 
recognized,  besides  Parsons,  Fielden  and  Spie's? 

"A.     I  think  I  saw  Schwab  there. 

"  Q.  Who  else — did  you  see  any  of  the  other  defend- 
ants, any  of  these  defendants  there  that  you  recognized? 

"  A.  I  did  not  recognize  any  of  them  but  those  three. 
I  am  not  altogether  positive  about  Schwab,  but  I  think  I 
saw  him  there." 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Schwab  was  at  Deering  that 
night  and  made  a  speech  there,  but  it  is  also  true  that  he 
was  at  the  Haymarket,  and  he  could  have  had  the  con- 
versation described  by  Thompson,  and  the  one  described 
.  by  McKeough,  and  still  have  had  ample  opportunity  to 
,  get  to  Deering  at  the  time  it  is  claimed  he  reached  there. 

The  defense  introduced  a  number  of  witnesses,  whose 
evidence  is  cited  and  collated  in  their  brief,  to  the  effect 
that  Spies  did  not  leave  the  wagon  until  just  as  the  bomb 
was  thrown.  Spies  testifies  that  just  after  leaving  the 
wagon  he  went  north  to  Zepf's  Hall.  These  witnesses 
are  the  same  ones  upon  whom  the  defense  rely  upon  all 
controverted  questions  of  fact,  and,  in  considering  their 
evidence,  the  criticisms  which  we  have  made  upon  other 
points  are  applicable  upon  this.  The  only  witness  among 
all  those  introduced  in  the  case  who  testified  that  August 
Spies  was  in  Zepf's  Hall  is  himself;  and  his  brother, 
Henry,  says  in  his  testimony  (M,  148-50)  that,  after  being 
shot,  he  himself  went  to  Zepf's  Hall  for  his  brother,  but 
did  not  find  him. 

It  is  a  very  significant  fact  that  the  defense  introduced 
two  witnesses,  August  Krumm  and  William  Albright  (L, 
412  and  488),  who  testified  that  just  as-  the  police  came 


334 

up  and  halted  they  were  standing  in  Crane's  alley,  a  few 
feet  back  from  the  mouth  of  the  alley,  and  Albright 
lighted  a  match  from  which  both  of  them  lit  their  pipes; 
thus  placing  themselves  in  just  about  the  positon  in  which 
Gilmer  says  that  Schnaubelt  and  Spies  stood,  and  at- 
tempting to  have  the  jury  infer  that  Gilmer  did  see  a 
match  lighted,  but  made  the  mistake  of  assuming  that  a 
pipe  was  a  bomb. 


This  closes  the  discussion  of  the  controverted  questions 
of  fact,  and  closes  our  collation  of  the  evidence  in  the 
case.  There  are  many  points  in  the  evidence  to  which 
we  have  not  referred.  The  short  time  which  we  have 
had  for  the  preparation  of  this  brief,  having  received  the 
brief  for  plaintiffs  in  error  but  a  few  days  ago,  pre- 
cludes a  reference  to  them. 

Under  the  instructions  in  the  case,  especially  those  as 
to  which  complaint  is  made  by  counsel,  on  these  contro- 
verted questions,  the  two  most  important  are:  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  crowd  fired  first,  and  as  to  whether 
or  not  threats  were  uttered  as  the  police  approached. 

If  the  crowd  fired  first  (and  that  they  did  there  can  be 
no  question),  that  fact,  as  we  have  stated  before,  is  in  it- 
self conclusive  that  they  were  there,  armed,  ready  and 
waiting  to  attack  the  police;  and  the  moment  the  signal 
was  given,  the  bomb  thrown,  they  did,  in  fact,  open  the 
attack. 

The  fact  that  threats  were  uttered — about  which  we 


335 

submit,  under  the  evidence,  there  can  be  no  question — 
also  shows  that  the  crowd  was  waiting  to  attack.  That 
they  were  beaten,  and  the  police  victorious,  is  owing  to 
the  fact  that  they  had  entirely  over-estimated  the  moral 
effect  of  dynamite,  not  its  physical  effect;  for  the  effect 
of  that  bomb  was  certainly  as  great  as  any  one  in  his 
wildest  imaginings  could  have  dreamed  it  would  be;  but 
the  "  demoralization  "  which  followed,  about  which  the 
witness  Taylor  testifies  so  unctiously,  was  a  great  physi- 
cal and  not  a  moral  demoralization.  The  police  stood 
their  ground;  they  did  not  flee;  and  the  moment  they  re- 
turned the  fire  those  of  the  revolutionists  who  had  fondly 
hoped  for  success  knew  that,  instead  of  success,  defeat 
stared  them  in  the  face,  and  they  sought  security  in 
flight;  the  anarchists  did,  in  fact,  "  sneak  away." 


CONCLUSION. 

The  indictment  in  this  case  was  for  murder.  There 
were  a  large  number  of  counts.  Some  of  them  were  the 
ordinary  counts  for  murder,  charging  the  defendants 
directly  with  the  murder.  These  counts  would  have  been 
sufficient,  but  others  were  added,  some  of  which  charged 
that  one  of  the  defendants  committed  the  murder,  that  the 
others  were  accessories  before  the  fact,  and  in  conclusion, 
charged  all  of  them  with  the  murder.  These  counts 
varied,  naming  each  one  of  the  defendants  respectively  as 
the  principal  and  the  others  as  accessories.  Some  of  the 
counts  charged  all  of  the  defendants  with  being  accessory 
to  a  murder  committed  by  an  unknown  person,  and  in. 
conclusion,  charged  them  directly  with  that  murder. 


336 

We  submit,  from  an  inspection  of  the  evidence  above 
set  out,  that  it  sustains  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  the 
theory  of  the  state.  So  far  as  the  question  of- conspiracy  is 
concerned,  no  attempt  was  made  upon  the  trial,  on  the  part 
of  any  of  the  defendants,  to  deny  the  conspiracy,  or  to  deny 
their  complicity  in  it.  If  the  bomb  was  thrown  as  the 
result  of  the  conspiracy,  it  follows  that  all  of  the  defend- 
ants are  guilty.  We  submit  that  as  to  that  question  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  The  defendants  had  for  years  deliberately 
plotted  murder;  they  had  deliberately  preached  it  in 
secret  meetings,  openly  upon  the  streets  and  defiantly 
through  the  press  controlled  by  themselves;  they  had  for 
months  been  actively  engaged  in  preparing  to  bring  it 
abqut.  It  is  urged  by  their  counsel  that  the  theory  of 
conspiracy  to  overthrow  the  law  of  the  land  by  force, 
on  the  part  of  the  prisoners  and  those  connected  with 
them,  is  absurd;  that  there  was  no  possibility  whatever 
of  their  accomplishing  their  plans.  The  answer  to  that 
is,  that  some  of  the  men  are  so  constituted  as  not  to  be 
able  to  weigh  the  chances  of  success  or  failure.  They 
become  converts  to  a  theory,  dream  over  it  until  their 
dream  amounts  to  an  infatuation,  work  themselves  up  to 
such  a  pitch  of  ecstacy  as  to  entirely  obliberate  the  cool 
judgment  which  prevails  among  men  generally. 

No  better  instance  of  that  can  be  found  than  the  case 
of  the  man  to  whom  counsel  for  the  prisoners  continually 
compare  them — the  case  of  John  Brown,  whose  attempt 
at  Harper's  Ferry  to  incite  a  servile  insurrection  among 
the  slaves  of  the  South,  and  to  thus  secure  their  freedom 
by  force,  was  certainly  as  wild  as  that  of  the  anarchists 
here.  In  fact,  the  chances  for  his  success  were  infinitely 
less  than  theirs.  His  party — those  cognizant  of 
his  plans — were  few.  They  were  armed  with  the 


337 

ordinary  weapons.  They  had  no  advantage  whatever 
over  those  by  whom  they  knew  they  would 
be  attacked.  He  expected  his  reinforcements  and 
aid  from  a  class  of  men  who  were  slaves,  ignorant 
and  cowardly,  and  who  had  never  been  educated  to  and 
had  no  knowledge  of  his  intentions.  Here,  the  prisoners 
had  been  for  months  and  years  educating  their  followers. 
They  had  an  organization  extending  through  the  whole 
city,  numbering,  as  Spies  in  his  declarations  said,  and  as 
the  articles  in  their  papers  declared,  over  three  thousand 
men — men  who  had  been  armed  and  drilled  for  years  for 
the  express  purpose  of  assistance  whenever  they  should 
be  called  upon.  Moreover,  they  were  armed  with  ex- 
plosives of  a  most  powerful  and  destructive  character, 
explosives  whose  power  and  force  the  public  suppose  has 
no  limitation  whatever.  They  had  demonstrated  its  force. 
They  believed  in  its  power,  not  only  in  physical  power, 
but  supposed  that  the  first  use  of  it  would  utterly  de- 
moralize the  whole  community  and  place  it  at  their  dis- 
posal. This  appears  from  numbers  of  the  articles  herein- 
above  quoted — articles  in  which  they  declare  that  one 
bomb  would  destroy  the  First  regiment;  that  it  would 
annihilate  and  destroy  the  police.  Spies  himself  published 
on  the  afternoon  of  the  day  of  the  Haymarket,  in  the  Ar- 
beiter  Zeitung,  an  article  written  by  his  own  hand,  en- 
titled "  Blood,"  in  which  he  declared  that  "  if  the  brothers 
"  had  defended  themselves  with  one  single  dynamite 
"  bomb,  not  one  of  the  murderous  police  would  have 
"  escaped  his  well-merited  fate."  That  this  statement 
was  the  expression  of  his  deliberate  judgment,  and  not 
merely  an  extravagance  of  speech  upon  his  part,  is  ap- 
parent from  the  fact  that  a  year  before,  while  talking 
with  Johnston  (J,  403),  whom  he  supposed  to  be  a  co- 


338 

conspirator  with  him,  while  witnessing  a  review  of  the 
Illinois  National  Guards,  he  stated  that  half  a  dozen 
dynamite  bombs  would  scatter  them  all;  that  they  were 
only  boys,  and  would  be  no  use  in  a  riot;  that  fifty  de- 
termined men  would  disarm  them  all. 

The  idea  was  a  common  one  among  the  conspirators, 
was  foremost  in  their  speeches,  utterances  and  declara- 
tions, that  the  power  of  dynamite  was  unlimited,  and, 
best  of  all,  it  was  easily  obtainable  and  cheap. 

Moreover,  it  must  be  remembered,  in  this  connection, 
that  the  meeting  was  called  for  7:30  P.  M.;  that  it  was 
expected  that  25,000  persons  would  be  present.  It  was 
also  undoubtedly  expected  that  the  police  would  attempt 
early  in  the  evening  to  disperse  the  meeting.  The  police 
did  not  appear  until  late,  and  at  that  time  many  of  the 
conspirators,  as,  for  instance,  Engel,  had  left  for  their 
homes,  doubtless  supposing  that  the  police  would  not 
come.  If  the  police  had  appeared  early  in  the  evening, 
there  can  be  no  question  in  the  mind  of  any  one  familiar 
with  the  circumstances  of  the  case  that  the  whole  body 
of  them  would  have  been  destroyed,  and,  the  signal  hav- 
ing been  given  at  a  time  when  the  conspirators,  scattered 
throughout  the  city,  were  waiting  for  it  and  could  have 
been  notified,  a  general  carnage  and  destruction  would 
have  been  inaugurated. 

There  can  be  no  question  on  a  consideration  of  the 
whole  evidence  in  the  case  that  the  bomb  was  thrown  as 
the  result  and  in  pursuance  of  the  conspiracy  and  by  the 
instigation,  advice  and  encouragement  of  the  prisoners. 
The  instrument  itself  is  almosj:  conclusive  proof  of  that. 
Who,  in  America,  ever  made  or  used  a  dynamite  bomb 
of  that  description  unless  he  were  an  anarchist?  Who 


339 

ever  advocated  its  use  as  a  weapon  with  which  to  resist 
the  police  in  the  city  of  Chicago  except  the  members  of 
the  conspiracy  in  Chicago?  Why  were  the  conspirators 
manufacturing  and  experimenting  with  these  bombs,  if 
not  with  some  such  purpose?  The  revolver  may  have 
a  lawful  or  an  unlawful  use.  One  man  may  use  it  to  de- 
fend his  home  from  the  encroachments  of  the  bwrglar; 
another  may  use  it  to  effectuate  a  burglary,  but  for  what 
lawful  purpose  can  a  dynamite  bomb  be  used,  or  for  what 
lawful  purpose  did  any  man  ever  make  or  use  it?  It  was 
never  used  even  in  warfare.  It  is  the  weapon  of  assassins. 
After  Greif's  Hall  meeting,  and  after  the  Haymarket 
meeting  had  been  agreed  upon,  Lingg  went  home  with 
Seliger  and  others  and  devoted  his  time  Tuesday  with 
Seliger  and  a  company  of  others  in  the  hasty  manu- 
facture and  completion  of  these  bombs,  and  during  the 
whole  of  the  day  men  were  continually  coming  to 
and  going  from  his  place.  Lingg  himself  said  that 
the  bombs  must  be  ready  and  were  for  use  that  night. 
The  bomb  thrown  was  identical  in  construction  with  the 
bombs  which  Lingg  himself  admitted  he  had  made,  of  the 
same  character,  size  and  composition  ;  identical  in 
composition  and  character  with  the  "  Czar "  bomb  in 
Spies'  office.  After  the  bomb  was  thrown  and  Lingg 
was  on  his  way  home  at  midnight,  he  said  to  Seliger, 
while  talking  about  the  throwing  of  the  bomb,  that  he 
himself  was  now  "  chided  "  for  what  he  had  done.  If  it  is 
possible  to  prove  any  fact  by  circumstantial  evidence  in  a 
criminal  case,  the  fact  has  been  proven  beyond  all  ques- 
tion of  doubt  that  the  bomb  thrown  that  night  was  made 
by  Louis  Lingg  and  thrown  by  a  co-conspirator. 


34° 

It  is  contended  on  behalf  of  the  prisoners  that  the  meet- 
ing was  a  lawful  one,  that  the  police  in  attempting  to  dis- 
perse it  were  themselves  violaters  of  the  law. 

If  that  be  true,  it  constitutes  no  defense  in  this  case. 
Even  if  the  police  were  unjustified  in  dispersing  the  meet- 
ing; even  if  the  police  were  mistaken  in  dispersing  the 
meeting,  it  would  not  justify  any  one  under  the  law  in 
taking  their  lives.  The  only  defense  for  the  taking  of 
life  in  this  state  is  that  the  person  who  does  it  does  it 
under  the-well  grounded  belief  that  by  his  act  only  can 
his  own  life  or  his  own  person  be  protected. 

The  meeting  was  not  a  lawful  one.  It  had  its  incep- 
tion in  the  "  Revenge  "  circular,  a  circular  issued  for  the 
purpose  of  inciting  laboring  men  of  the  city  to  revenge 
the  alleged  murder  of  workingmen  at  McCormick's.  it 
will  be'remembered  that  most  of  the  conspirators,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  evidence  in  the  case,  were  of  German- 
speaking  nationalities,  and  it  is  very  significant  that  the 
German  portion  of  the  "  Revenge  "  circular  in  its  con- 
cluding sentences  was  even  more  inflammatory  than  the 
English.  It  concluded  : 

"  Laboring  men,  Hercules,  you  have  arrived  at  the 
cross  way.  Which  way  will  you  decide?  For  slavery 
and  hunger  or  for  freedom  and  bread?  If  you  decide 
for  the  latter,  then  do  not  delay  a  moment;  then,  people, 
to  arms!  Annihilation  to  the  beasts  in  human  form  who 
call  themselves  rulers!  Uncompromising  annihilation  to 
them!  This  must  be  your  motto.  Think  of  the  heroes 
whose  blood  has  fertilized  the  road  to  progress,  liberty 
and  humanity,  and  strive  and  become  worthy  of  them!" 

This  appeal  of  Spies,  scattered  as  it  was  at  the  haunts 
of  the  socialists,  was  to  them  a  statement  that  the  time 
for  the  "  social  revolution  "  had  come,  that  they  must  act 
now  or  never,  and  was  a  direct  appeal  to  them  to  an- 
uihilate  the  police  force.  After  it  came  to  the  meeting  at 


Greif's  Hall,  a  seditious  and  treasonable  meeting,  as- 
sembled for  seditious  and  treasonable  purposes;  com- 
posed of  men  who,  if  they  were  citizens,  would  be  traitors. 
'  That  gathering  arranged  for  the  Haymarket  meeting, 
and  when  the  suggestion  was  made  by  the  chairman  that 
it  should  be  held  at  the  Market  square,  on  the  south  side, 
Fischer,  one  of  the  prisoners,  objected  that  the  Market 
square  was  a  "  mouse-trap,"  and  named  the  Haymarket. 

It  is  significant  that  that  meeting  opened  with  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  facts  stated  in  the  "  Revenge  "  circular. 

Moreover,  that  the  meeting  decided  that  whenever  the 
word  "  Ruhe  "  should  appear  in  the  Arbeiter  ^eitung, 
it  should  be  the  signal  that  the  time  for  the  general  up- 
rising had  come,  and  that  the  "  Revolution  "  was  inaug- 
urated. The  publication  of  that  notice  and  the  time  of 
its  publication  were  left  with  the  committee  who  had  it 
in  charge. 

The  next  step  was  the  publication  of  the  "  dodger " 
calling  the  meeting,  prepared  and  printed  by  Fischer. 
That  "  dodger,"  as  first  printed,  distinctly  called  upon  the 
workingmen  of  the  city  to  "  arm  themselves  and  appear 
in  full  force,"  and  it  is  in  evidence  in  the  case  that 
"  dodgers  "  having  that  line  in  it  were  in  the  possession 
of  the  police. 

Next  came  the  word  "  Ruhe,"  the  signal  agreed  upon, 
and  by  its  publication  the  fact  was  announced  that  the 
time  for  the  "Revolution"  had  arrived.  In  the  same 
paper  containing  it  again  appeared  the  German  portion  of 
the  "Revenge"  circular,  and  the  significent  line,  written 
by  Spies  himself,  that  one  bomb  would  have  annihilated 
the  police  at  McCormick's. 

After  the  meeting  was  in  progress,  and  before  the  po- 
lice appeared,  Fielden  made  a  speech  not  only  inflamma- 
tory and  incendiary  in  its  character,  but  actually  seditious 


342 

and  treasonable — a  speech  which,  at  the  least,  was  a 
direct  solicitation  tending  to  a  breach  of  \he  peace,  and 
hence  was  a  crime  in  itself,  according  to  the  doctrine  laid 
down  in  Cox  v.  The  People,  82  111.,  193.  This  speech, 
moreover,  was  a  direct  encouragement  to  do  the  very  act 
which  was  done  that  night. 

No  criticism  can  be  made  upon  the  police  for  dispers- 
ing that  meeting.  When  we  consider  that  at  that  time  a 
general  excitement  was  prevailing  throughout  the  city, 
that  acts  of  violence  were  being  constantly  committed, 
and  the  circumstances  under  which  this  meeting  was 
called,  a  failure  of  the  police  to  disperse  it  would  have 
been  criminal. 

•  If,  during  the  years  preceding,  meetings  at  which  sedi- 
tion and  assassination  were  openly  advocated  had  been 
dispersed,  the  massacre  at  the  Haymarket  never  would 
have  occurred.  No  better  illustration  of  the  effect  of  a 
fearless  enforcement  of  the  law  is  seen  than  in  the  fact 
that  as  soon  as  Johann  Most  had  suffered  the  penalty  im- 
posed upon  him  by  the  English  law  for  his  incendiary 
utterances,  he  left  the  soil  of  England  and  planted  himself 
upon  the  soil  of  America,  and  that  the  officers  of  the  law, 
who,  because  of  his  teachings,  became  martyrs  for  the 
law,  instead  of  being  officers  of  the  kingdom  of  Great 
Britain,  were  officers  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

GEORGE  HUNT, 

Attorney  General. 
JULIUS  S.  GRINNELL, 

States  Attorney. 

GEORGE  C.  INGHAM,  FRANCIS  W.  WALKER, 

Of  Counsel.  EDMUND  FURTHMAN, 

Asst.  States  Attorneys. 


SUPREME  COURT  OF  ILLINOIS, 

NORTHERN  GRAND  DIVISION. 

MARCH  TF.RM,  A.  D.  1887. 


AUGUST  SPIES 

Plaint 


ET    AL.,  \ 

in/iff*  in  Error,         I 


Error  to  the 
)        Criminal  Court  of 

THE    PEOPLE    OF    THE    STATE    OF      y  Cook  Countv. 

ILLINOIS, 

Defendants  in  Error. 


BRIEF  ON  THE  LAW  FOR  DEFENDANTS  IN  ERROR, 


GEOROE   HUNT, 

ATTORNEY  GENERAL. 

JULIUS  S.  GRINNELL, 

STATES  ATTORNEY. 


GEORGE  C.  INGHAM,  FRANCIS  W.  WALKER, 

OF  COUNSEL.  EDMUND  FURTHMAN, 

ASST.  STATES  ATTORNEYS. 


CHICAGO: 
BABNARD  &  GUNTHORP,  LAW  PRINTERS,  44  .fe  46  I  ..\s  \  i.i.r.  STREET. 

18«7. 


INDEX  TO  BRIEF 


PAGE 

I.  Introduction  i 

II.  Law  of  Conspiracy  a 

(a.)  Where  there  is  a  conspiracy  to  do  an  unlawful  act 
which  naturally  or  probably  involves  the  use  of  force  and 
violence,  the  act  of  each  conspirator  done  in  furtherance  of 
the  common  design  is  the  act  of  all.  If  murder  results,  all 
are  guilty  of  murder;  and  that,  too,  although  the  conspira- 
tor who  does  the  act  cannot  be  identified ;  and, 

(/*.)  Even  though  the  particular  act  may  not  have  been 
arranged  for,  or  the  means  of  its  perpetration  provided, 
that  the  act  was  the  natural  result  of  the  conspiracy  and 
was  perpetrated  in  furtherance  of  the  common  design. 
Whether  the  act  was  the  act  of  a  member  of  the  conspiracy, 
whether  it  was  done  in  furtherance  of  the  common  design, 
is  a  question  of  proof. 2 


III.     Competency  of  Evidence  .         -     10 

(a.)  Any  act  or  declaration  of  any  of  the  defendants  tend- 
ing to  prove  the  conspiracy,  or  the  connection  of  that  de- 
fendant with  it,  whether  made  during  the  existence  of  the 
conspiracy  or  after  its  completion,  is  admissible  against  him.  10 

(6.)  The  conspiracy  having  been  established,  prima  facie, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  trial  judge,  any  act  or  declaration  of 
any  member  of  the  conspiracy,  though  he  may  not  be  a 
partv  defendant,  in  furtherance  of  the  conspiracy,  is  evi- 
dence against  all  the  conspirators  on  trial 11 

(c.)  The  conspiracy  per  se  may  be  established  in  the  first  in- 
stance by  evidence  having  no  relation  to  the  defendants. 
It  may  be  shown  by  acts  of  different  persons  at  different 
times  and  places,  and  by  any  circumstances  which  tend  to 
prove  it.  The  conspiracy  and  its  objects  having  been  shown, 
the  defendants  are  not  affected  by  it  unless  they  are  con- 
nected with  it  by  proof. 12 


IV.     The  Doctrine  of  Accessories  36 

Where  advice  to  murder  instigates  murder  the  adviser  is 
guilty,  even 

(a.)  If  the  perpetrator  is  unknown;  Provided  the  proof  shows 
that  the  act  was  caused  by  the  advice 36 

(£.)  And  even  though  (also)  the  advice  was  general  in  its  char- 
acter, and  was  not  specifically  directed  to  any  particular  per- 
son to  do  any  particular  act 48 


IV 


V.     The  Instructions  -     67 

People's  instructions — 

Number  four 67 

Number  five 80 

Number  five  and  a  half 86 

Number  twelve 96 

Number  thirteen 101 

Number  thirteen  and  a  half 103 

Defendants'  instructions — 

Refused 105 

Instruction  given  by  the  court  of  its  own  motion.  . . Ill 

Instruction  as  to  the  form  of  the  verdict..  .  .113 


VI.     The  Jury  -      115 

(2.)     Overruled  challenges  complained  of 139 

(3.)     What  is  an  impartial  jury 160 


VII.     Other  Matters  Complained  of  195 

Impeachment  of  jurors  by  affidavit  196 

The  number  of  challenges 197 

Conduct  of  the  special  bailiff 199 

Motion  for  separate  trial  .    201 

Remarks  of  State's  Attorney 202 

Conclusion 202 


I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The  record  in  this  case  is  exceedingly  voluminous. 
The  briefs  filed  by  plaintiffs  in  error  contain  over  five 
hundred  pages.  These  briefs  and  the  abstracts  we  did 
not  see  until  they  were  filed  in  this  court.  Owing  to  the 
shortness  of  time  which  we  have  for  a  reply,  it  will  be 
impossible  for  us  to  discuss  fully  or  seriatim  the  points 
raised  by  them.  We  can  only  discuss  the  propositions 
upon  which  the  state  relies,  and,  in  discussing  these  we 
shall  necessarily  in  effect  answer  the  most,  if  not  all,  of 
those  maintained  by  the  plaintiffs  in  error,  as  they  are  the 
converse  of  each  other. 

The  facts  in  the  case  we  have  discussed  in  another 
brief,  and  have  there'  indicated  the  theory  upon  which  the 
case  was  tried  and  upon  which  the  state  now  relies.  We 
shall  here  discuss  only  propositions  of  law:  the  applica- 
tion of  those  propositions  will  be  seen  upon  reference  to 
our  other  brief. 

We  contend  that  the  death  of  Degan  was  murder,  re- 
sulting from  a  conspiracy,  a  conspiracy  to  which  all  of 
the  plaintiffs  in  error  were  parties;  that  its  general  object 
and  design  was  the  overthrow  of  the  existing  social  order 
and  of  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  law,  by  force. 

Upon  this  state  of  facts,  we  argue: 


II. 

THE  LAW  OF  CONSPIRACY. 

(tf.)  Where  there  is  a  conspiracy  to  do  an  unlawful 
act  which  naturally  or  -probably  involves  the  use  of  Jorce 
and  violence,  the  act  of  each  conspirator  done  in  further- 
ance of  the  common  design  is  the  act  of  all.  If  murder 
results,  all  are  guilty  of  murder;  and  that,  too,  although 
the  conspirator  who  does  the  act  cannot  be  identified;  and, 

(£.)  Even  though  the  particular  act  may  not  have 
been  arranged  for,  or  the  means  of  its  perpetration,  pro- 
vided the  act  was  the  natural  result  of  the  conspiracy  and 
was  perpetrated  in  furtherance  of  the  .common  design. 
Whether  the  act  was  the  act  of  a  member  of  the  conspiracy, 
whether  it  was  done  in  furtherance  of  the  common  design, 
is  a  question  of  proof . 

Upon  these  propositions  we  cite  the  following  authori- 
ties: 

Brennan  v.  The  People,  15  111.,  511. 

Hanna  v.  The  People,  86  111.,  243. 

Lamb  v.    The  People,  96  111.,  74,  and  cases 

cited  in  hoth  opinions. 
Kennedy  v.  The  People,  40  111.,  488. 
Whar.  C.  L.  (9th  Ed.),  §  1,405. 

i  Bish.  Cr.'  L.,  636,  and  cases  cited: 

"  Acts  within  common  plan.  But,  as  we  say  in  another 
connection,  a  man  may  be  guilty  of  a  wrong  which  he  did 


not  specifically  intend,  if  it  came  naturally  or  even  acci- 
dentally through  some  other  specific  or  a  general  evil  pur- 
pose. When,  therefore,  persons  combine  to  do  an  unlaw- 
ful thing,  if  the  act  of  one  proceeding  and  growing  out 
of  the  common  plan  terminates  in  a  criminal  result,  though 
not  the  particular  result  meant,  all  are  liable." 

Hawkins'  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  Ch.,  29,  Sec.  8: 

"It  seems  to  be  sufficient  that  the  person  who  does  the 
fact  is  encouraged  and  emboldened  into  it  from  the  hopes 
of  present  and  immediate  assistance  from  the  abettor, 
whether  he  be  in  view  of  the  fact  or  not,  and  upon  this 
ground  it  has  been  adjudged  that  where  persons  combine 
together  to  stand  by  one  another  in  the  breach  of  the 
peace,  with  a  general  resolution  to  resist  all  opposers,  and 
in  the  execution  of  their  design  a  murder  is  committed, 
all  the  company  are  equally  principals,  though  at  the  time 
of  the  fact  some  of  them  were  at  such  a  distance  as  to  be 
out  of  view." 

Foster,  351,  Sec.  6: 

"  There  might  be  no  special  malice  against  the  party 
slain,  nor  deliberate  intention  to  hurt  him;  but  if  the  fact 
was  committed  in  the  prosecution  of  the  original  purpose, 
which  was  unlawful,  the  whole  party  will  be  involved  in 
the  guilt  of  him  who  gave  the  blow." 

State  v.  McCahill,  30  N.  W.  R.,  553: 

In  a  trial  for  murder  committed  by  a  mob  of  miners  on 
strike,  in  carrying  out  a  conspiracy  to  drive  out  new  men, 
an  instruction  to  the  effect  that  if  the  defendant  was  en- 
gaged in  a  conspiracy  to  forcibly  compel  the  new  men  to 
leave,  and  in  the  carrying  out  of  such  conspiracy  the  act 
of  homicide  was  committed,  such  homicide  was  binding 
upon  him  as  much  as  if  done  by  himself,  is  not  error. 

The  court  say: 

"  Where  there  is  a  conspiracy  to  accomplish  an  unlaw- 
ful purpose,  and  the  means  are  not  specially  agreed  upon 


or  understood,  each  conspirator  becomes  responsible  Jor  the 
means  used  by  any  co-conspirator  in  the  accomplishment  of 
the  purpose  in  which  they  are  all  at  the  time  engaged." 

Judge  KING,  in  his  charge  to  the  jury  in  the  cases  grow- 
ing out  of  the  riots  in  Philadelphia  in  1844  (Whar.  on 
Horn.,  708),  said: 

"  When  divers  persons  resolve  generally  to  resist  all 
officers  in  a  breach  of  the  peace,  and  to  execute  it  in  such 
a  manner  as  naturally  tends  to  raise  tumults  and  affrays, 
and  in  doing  so  happen  to  kill  a  man,  they  are  all  guilty 
of  murder.  For  they  must  at  their  peril  abide  the  event 
of  their  acts,  and  when  they  engage  in  such  bold  disturb- 
ances of  the  public  peace,  in  opposition  to,  and  in  defiance 
of  the  justice  of  the  nation,  malice  in  such  killing  is  im- 
plied by  law  in  all  who  were  engaged  in  the  unlawful 
enterprise.  Whether  the  deceased  fell  by  the  hand  of  the 
accused  in  particular,  or  otherwise,  is  immaterial.  All  are 
responsible  for  the  acts  of  each,  if  done  in  furtherance 
and  pursuance  of  the  common  design.  This  doctrine  may 
seem  hard  and  severe,  but  it  has  been  found  necessary  to 
prevent  riotous  combinations  committing  murder  with  im- 
punity. For  where  such  illegal  associates  are  numerous,  it 
would  scarcely  be  -practicable  to  establish  the  identity  oj  the 
individual  actually  guilty  of  the  homicide" 

Foster's  Rep.,  370,  Sec.  3: 

"  Where  the  principal  goeth  beyond  the  terms  of  the 
solicitation,  if,  in  the  event,  the  felony  committed  was  a 
probable  conseqence  of  what  was  ordered  or  advised,  the 
person  giving  such  orders  or  advice  will  be  an  accessory 
to  that  felony.  A  adviseth  B  to  rob  C ';  he  doth  rob  him, 
and  in  so  doing,  either  upon  resistance  made  or  to  conceal 
the  fact,  or  upon  any  other  motive  operating  at  the  time 
of  the  robbery,  killeth  him;  A  is  accessory  to  the  murder. 
These  cases  are  all  governed  by  one  and  the  same  princi- 
ple. The  advice,  solicitation  or  orders,  in  substance,  were 
pursued  and  were  extremely  flagitious  on  the  part  of  A. 
The  events,  though  possibly  falling  out  beyond  his  original 
intention,  were,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things,  the  prob- 


able  consequences  of  -what  B  did  under  the  influence  and 
at  the  instigation  of  A,  And,  therefore,  in  the  justice  of 
the  law,  he  is  answerable  for  it." 

Ncvitt  v.  The  State,  60  Ind.,  308: 

"  Where  on  the  trial  of  several  defendants  on  an  in- 
dictment for  larceny,  the  evidence  establishes,  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  that  the  larceny  charged  was  com- 
mitted by  some  one  of  the  defendants  in  pursuance  of  a 
common  purpose  by  all,  the  jury  is  warranted  in  finding 
each  of  them  guilty,  though  the  evidence  leaves  in  doubt 
the  identity  of  the  -particular  defendant  -who  took  the  -prop- 
erty:' 

In  the  case  of  Ritzman  v.  The  People,  no  111.,  369,  a 
case  in  which  death  resulted  from  the  act  of  some  one  of 
a  party  engaged  upon  an  unlawful  purpose,  the  court 
say: 

v 

'-'•And  yet  iue  arc  told  there  can  be  no  conviction  in  this 
rase,  because  the  evidence  does  not  show  bevond  a  reasonable 
'  doubt  the  ver\  hand  that  hurled  the  fatal  missile  that  sent 
him  into  eternity  without  a  moments  warning.  So  far  as 
the  accused  is  concerned,  under  the  proofs  in  this  case  we 
think  it  wholly  immaterial  whether  the  missile  in  question 
was  thrown  by  the  hand  of  the  accused,  or  some  one  of 
his  co-trespassers." 

Hamilton  v.   The  People,  113  111.,  34: 

"The  fact  is  undisputed  that  the  three  defendants,  one 
of  whom  was  armed  with  a  pistol,  invaded  the  premises 
of  the  prosecuting  witness  with  a  criminal  purpose.  The 
business  upon  which  the  parties  deliberately  entered  was 
a  hazardous  one.  They  had  a  right  to  expect  that  in 
the  event  they  were  detected  in  stealing  melons,  it  would 
result  in  violence,  endangering  life  or  limb — as  it  actually 
turned  out  afterwards.  That  they  were  all  co-conspir- 
ators in  a  dangerous  criminal  enterprise,  is  an  undisputed 
fact.  Such  being  the  case,  whatever  was  done  bv  one  in 
contemplation  of  law  was  done  by  all,  and  all  are  therefore 
equally  responsible." 


Regina  v.  Tyler  &  Price,  8  C.  &  P.,  616;  (34  E.  C.  L.)r 
is  a  case  where  the  prisoners  were  indicted  for  the  mur- 
der of  Nicholas  Meares  (1836.)  There  were  two  counts 
in  the  indictment;  the  first  charged  them  with  be- 
ing accessories  to  the  murder  of  Meares,  and  that 
the  principle  offense  was  committed  by  John  Thorn,  oth- 
erwise called  Sir  William  Courtney.  Thorn,  who  was 
insane  and  called  himself  Sir  William  Courtney,  had  as- 
sembled a  great  number  of  persons  together  and  led  them 
about  the  neighborhood  of  Canterbury,  promising  them 
plenty  in  this  world  and  happiness  hereafter,  and  asserted 
that  he  was  above  all  earthly  power  and  was  the  Saviour 
of  the  world.  It  was  proved  that  on  one  occasion  the 
prisoner  Tyler  said  to  him:  "  Sir  William,  I  heard  a  man 
"  say  that  you  were  a  fool  and  an  imposter,  and  that  he 
"  would  not  mind  taking  you."  Thorn  replied,  "  If  any 
"  one  comes  I  shall  try  my  arm.  I  can  clap  my  left  hand 
"  on  my  right  arm  and  slay  ten  thousand  men.  If  the 
"  constables  come  I  shall  cut  them  down  like  grass."  Two 
days  after  Thorn  had  caused  this  assembly  of  persons,  a 
warrant  was  granted  for  his  apprehenison.  It  was  placed 
in  the  hands  of  Meares,  a  constable.  Some  of  the  men 
who  were  with  Thorn  armed  with  bludgeons  were  placed 
as  guards  about  his  house.  Thorn,  upon  being  informed 
of  the  arrival  of  Meares  and  his  brother,  said,  "  Are  you 
"  constables?  "  The  deceased  replied,  "lam;"  whereupon 
Thorn  shot  him  and  attacked  the  brother,  who  escaped. 
Thorn  then  came  back  and  drew  a  sword,  with  which 
he  hacked  the  deceased.  The  prisoners  and  two  other 
persons,  by  order  of  Thorn,  took  the  deceased,  who  was 
still  alive,  and  threw  him  into  a  dry  ditch,  where  they  left 
him  and  returned  to  the  house  to  breakfast,  when  Thorn 
said,  "  I  have  killed  his  body,  but  I  have  saved  his  soul." 
Thorn  was  killed  later  on  by  the  military. 


As  to  the  first  count  of  the  indictment,  Lord  DENMAN 
said  in  summing  up: 

"  Thorn  was  undoubtedly  a  man  of  unsound  mind  and 
was  himself  not  responsible  for  his  act;  for  that  reason 
the  prisoners  who  were  charged  in  that  count  with  being 
accessories  to  his  act  could  not  be  convicted  under  that 
count." 

It  was  urged  by  Shee,  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  with 
respect  to  the  second  count,  that  they  could  only  be  made 
liable  if  the  act  was  done  in  the  prosecution  of  some  un- 
lawful purpose  in  which  all  of  the  parties  were  engaged; 
that  Thorn  and  his  followers  were  not  shown  to  hare  had 
an\  distinct  or  definite  -pur-pose  of  anv  kind,  and,  therefore, 
there  could  not  be  any  combination  or  community  of  pur- 
pose between  Thorn  and  the  prisoners.  He  also  insisted 
that  the  prisoners  did  what  was  imputed  to  them  from  a 
fear  of  personal  violence  at  the  hands  of  Thorn. 

DENMAN  in  charging  the  jury  said  that  the  prisoners 
could  not  set  up  fear  in  defense  of  their  act.  He  says: 

"  There  (in  the  second  count)  these  persons  are  them- 
selves charged  with  having  committed  the  offense;  and  if 
they  were  aware  of  the  malignant  purpose  entertained  by 
Thorn,  and  shared  in  that  purpose  with  him,  and  were 
present  aiding  and  abetting  and  assisting  him  in  the  com- 
mission of  acts  fatal  to  life,  in  the  course  of  accomplishing 
this  purpose,  then  no  doubt  they  are  guilty  as  principals 
on  this  second  count.  In  Hawkins  it  is  said,  'where  di- 
vers persons  resolve  generally  to  resist  all  opposers  in  the 
commission  of  any  breach  of  the  peace,  and  to  execute  it 
in  such  a  manner  as  naturally  tends  to  raise  tumults  and 
affrays,  and  in  so  doing  happen  to  kill  a  man,  they  arc  all 
guilty  oj  murder ;  for  they  must  at  their  peril  abide  the 
event  of  their  actions  who  willfully  engage  in  such  bold 
disturbances  of  the  public  peace  in  open  opposition  to  and 
defiance  of  the  justice  of  the  nation.'  But  in  all  such 
cases  the  fact  must  appear  to  have  been  committed  in 
prosecution  of  the  purpose  for  which  the  parties  assem- 


8 

bled.  Here  it  is  argued  that  as  Thorn  and  his  followers 
are  not  shown  to  have  had  any  distinct  and  definite  pur- 
pose in  view  in  assembling  together,  there  could  not  be 
any  general  combination  for  the  execution  of  any  such 
purpose,  and  the  defendants  must  therefore  be  acquitted. 
I  think  that  the  evidence  will  lead  you  to  a  very  different 
conclusion.  //  seems  to  me  wholly  unimportant  whether 
the  ^parties  had  a  well  defined  and  -particular  mischief  to 
bring  about  as  the  result  of  their  combination;  because  I 
think  if  their  object  was,  '  to  resist  all  opposers  in  the 
commission  of  any  breach  of  the  peace,'  and  that  for  that 
purpose  the  parties  assembled  together  and  armed  them- 
selves with  dangerous  weapons — in  that  case  it  appears  to 
me  that  however  blank  might  be  the  mind  of  Thorn  as  to 
any  ulterior  purpose,  and  however  the  minds  of  the  pris- 
oners might  be  unconscious  of  any  particular  object,  still 
if  they  contemplated  a  resistance  to  the  lawfully  constituted 
authorities  of  the  country  in  case  any  should  come  against 
them  while  they  were  so  banded  together,  there  would  be 
a  common  -purpose,  and  they  would  be  answerable  for  any- 
thing which  they  did  in  the  execution  of  it.  If  any  man 
is  found  aiding  another,  of  whose  ill  intentions  he  is  thor- 
oughly apprised,  he  is  responsible.  It  will  be  for  you  to 
say  whether  from  what  was  done  by  these  men  both  be- 
fore and  after  the  killing  of  Nicholas  Meares  they  did  not 
intend  this  general  resistance  to  the  law." 

There  was  a  verdict  of  guilty  upon  the  second  count. 

It  will  be  noticed  in  this  case  that  the  court  lays  stress 
upon  the  fact  that  they  were  present  at  the  time  of  the 
commission  of  the  offense.  This  was  important  under 
the  law,  as  it  existed  in  England  at  that  time,  for  if  they 
had  not  been  present,  either  actually,  or  so  near  as  to  be 
there  constructively  under  the  law  as  then  held,  they 
would  not  have  been  principals.  Our  statute,  however, 
provides  that  one  may  be  a  principal,  although  he  is  not 
present,  either  actually  or  constructively,  at  the  time  of 
the  commission  of  the  act,  providing  he  has,  before  the 


•commission  of  the  act,  advised,  aided   or  encouraged  its 
perpetration. 

Reg:  v.  Bernard,  I.  F.  &  F.,  240,  is  a  case  where 
Bernard  was  indicted  as  being  acccessory  to  the 
throwing  of  a  bomb.  The  bomb  was  thrown  by  Orsini 
-and  others  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  emperor  of 
France,  but  in  fact  killed  one  Nicholas  Batty. 

Lord  CAMPBELL,  in  charging  the  grand  jury,  said: 

"  Unless  the  evidence,  unanswered,  does,  in  your  judg- 
ment, make  out  against  Bernard  a  -prima  facie  case  of 
•complicity  in  the  plot  against  the  life  of  the  emperor,  I 
think  that  you  ought  to  return  the  indictment  which  will 
be  laid  before  you  not  a  true  bill,  and  this  will  put  an  end 
to  all  further  proceedings  under  the  commission.  But  if 
the  evidence  does,  in  your  judgment,  make  out  a  prima 
facie  case  of  complicity,  I  would  advise  you  to  find  a  true 
bill,  so  that  the  trial  may  proceed.  Such  complicity  may 
be  sufficient  to  make  the  accused  an  accessory  before  the 
fact  to  the  murders,  which  in  the  event  were  committed, 
although  the  deaths  of  the  individuals  ^vho  -were  killed 
-.cere  not  in  the  contemplation  of  the  accused  when  he  be- 
•came  a  party  to  the  plot.  It  is  laid  down  in  our  books 
that  '  an  accessory  before  the  fact  is  he  who,  being  absent 
at  the  time  of  the  offense  committed,  doth  yet  procure, 
•counsel,  command  or  abet  another  to  commit  a  felony; 
and  it  seems  that  those  who  by  hire,  command,  counsel 
-or  conspiracy,  and  those  who  by  showing  an  express  lik- 
ing, approbation  or  assent  to  another's  felonious  design  of 
•committing  a  felony,  abet  and  encourage  him  to  commit 
it,  but  are  so  far  absent  when  he  actually  commits  it  that 
he  could  not  be  encouraged  by  the  hopes  of  any  im- 
mediate help  or  assistance  from  them,  are  accessories  be- 
fore the  fact.'  As  'to  the  objection  that  Bernard  could 
have  had  no  intention  that  those  who  were  killed  by  the 
explosion  of  the  grenades  should  be  put  to  death,  it  may 
be  observed  that  such  a  question  can  only  arise  when  the 
principal  does  not  act  in  strict  conformity  with  the  plans 
and  instructions  of  the  accessory.  But  here,  if  Bernard 
•was  privy  to  the  plot,  Orsini,  Pierri,  Gomez  and  DeRudio, 


10 

in  throwing  the  grenades  as  they  did,  must  he  considered 
as  having  acted  strictly  in  conformity  -with  his  -plans  and 
instructions,  and  he  is  ansivenable,  as  accessory,  for  the 
consequences.  It  is  even  laid  down  that  '  where  the  principal 
goes  beyond  the  terms  of  the  solicitation,  yet  if,  in  the 
event,  the  felony  committed  was  a  -probable  consequence  of 
•iv  hat  if  as  ordered  or  advised,  the  person  giving  such  or- 
ders or  advice  will  be  an  accessory  to  that  felony.' ': 


III. 

THE  COMPETENCY  OF  EVIDENCE. 

(«.)  Any  act  or  declaration  of  any  of  the  defendants 
tending  to  -prove  the  conspiracy,  or  the  connection  of  that 
defendant  -with  it,  whether  made  during  the  existence  of 
the  conspiracy  or  after  its  completion,  is  admissible  against 
him. 

This  position  is  elementary,  and  we  leave  it  without 
further  comment. 

The  court  recognized  it  on  the  trial,  and  carefully  time 
and  again  during  the  introduction  of  the  evidence  an- 
nounced its  limitation;  we  cite  one  instance  of  many: 

"  The  COURT  (I,  348) :  I  have  no  objection  to  making 
the  declaration  now,  that  any  statement  by  any  one  of 
the  defendants,  made  in  the  absence  of  the  other  de- 
fendants, is  no  evidence — any  statement  made  after  the 
Haymarket  meeting,  after  the  separation  of  the  people 
at  that  meeting — any  statement  made  by  anyone  of  the 
defendants  not  in  the  presence  and  hearing  of  some  other 
one  of  the  defendants,  is  evidence  only  against  the  man 
who  makes  the  statement,  and  it  is  evidence  only  against 
the  one  in  whose  presence  and  hearing  it  was  made,  if  he 
assented." 


II 

And  the  effect  of  such  evidence  was  carefully  limited 
in  the  instruction  given  by  the  court  on  his  own  motion. 
(0,35-) 

"  The  case  of  each  defendant  should  be  considered 
with  the  same  care  and  scrutiny  as  if  he  alone  were  on 
trial.  If  a  conspiracy,  having  violence  and  murder  as  its 
object,  is  fully  proved,  then  the  acts  and  declarations  of 
each  conspirator  in  furtherance  of  the  conspiracy  are  the 
acts  and  declarations  of  each  one  of  the  conspirators. 
But  the  declarations  of  any  conspirator  before  or  after  the 
4th  of  May  which  are  merely  narrative  as  to  what  had 
been  or  would  be  done,  and  not  made  to  aid  in  carrying 
into  effect  the  object  of  the  conspiracy,  are  only  evidence 
against  the  one  who  made  them." 


The  conspiracy  having  been  established,  prima 
facie,  in  the  opinion  of  the  trial  judge,  any  act  or  declara- 
tion of  any  member  of  the  conspiracy,  though  he  may  not 
be  a  party  defendant,  in  furtherance  of  the  conspiracy,  is 
evidence  against  all  the  conspirators  on  trial. 

This  position  is  elementary,  and  we  need  not  cite  au- 
thorities to  sustain  it. 

Whether  a  conspiracy  is  established,  prima  facie,  is 
peculiarly  for  the  consideration  of  the  trial  court.. 

Card  v.  The  State  (Ind.),  9  N.  E.  R.,  591. 
i  Greenleaf  on  Ev.,  Sec.  in. 

This  rule  is  subject,  however,  to  this  objection:  that  it 
is  not  always  necessary,  to  render  the  declarations  admis- 
sible, that  the  conspiracy  should  have  been  first  established 
prima  facie. 

"  Ordinarily,  when  the  acts  and  declarations  of  one  co- 
conspirator  are  offered  in  evidence  as  against  another  co- 
conspirator,  the  conspiracy  itself  should -first  be  established 
prima  facie  and  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  judge  of  the 


12 

court  trying  the  cause.  But  this  cannot  always  be  re- 
quired; it  cannot  well  be  required  where  the  proof  of  the 
conspiracy  depends  upon  a  vast  amount  of  circumstantial 
evidence,  a  vast  number  of  isolated  and  independent 
facts;  and,  in  any  case,  where  such  acts  and  declarations 
are  introduced  in  evidence,  and  the  whole  of  the  evidence 
introduced  on  the  trial,  taken  together,  shows  that  such  a 
conspiracy  actually  exists,  it  will  be  considered  immaterial 
whether  *the  conspiracy  was  established  before  or  after 
the  introduction  of  such  acts  and  declarations." 

State  v.   Winner,  17  Kan.,  298. 

State  v.  Miller,  Pac.  Rep.,  Vol.  10,  p.  869. 

(t.)  The  conspiracy  -per  se  may  be  established  in  the 
first  instance  by  evidence  having  no  relation  to  the  defend- 
ants. It  may  be  shown  by  acts  of  different  persons  at  dif- 
ferent times  and  places,  and  by  any  circumstances  which 
tend  to  prove  it. 

The  conspiracy  and  its  objects  having  been  shown,  the 
defendants  are  not  affected  by  it  unless  they  are  connected 
with  it  by  proof. 

The  State  v.   Winner,  17  Kan.,  305. 

"  The  evidence  in  proof  of  a  conspiracy  will  generally* 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  circumstantial.  Though 
the  common  design  is  the  essence  of  the  charge,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  prove  that  the  defendants  came  together  and 
actually  agreed  in  terms  to  have  that  design  and  to  pursue 
it  bv  common  means.  If  it  be  proven  that  defendants, 
by  their  acts,  pursued  the  same  object,  often  by  the  same 
means,  one  performing  one  part  and  one  another  part  of 
the  same  act  so  as  to  complete  it,  with  a  view  to  the 
attainment  of  the  same  object,  the  jury  will  be  justified  in 
the  conclusion  that  they  were  engaged  in  a  conspiracy  to 
effect  that  object.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  prove  that  the 
conspiracy  originated  with  the  defendants,  or  that  thev 
met  during  the  process  of  the  concoction;  for  every  per- 
son entering  into  a  conspiracy  or  common  design  already 


footed,  is  deemed  in  law  a  party  to  all  acts  done  by  any 
of  the  other  parties,  before  or  afterwards,  in  furtherance 
of  the  common  design." 

3  Greenleaf  on  Ev.,  Sec.  93. 

Lord  KEN  YON: 

"  If  a  general  conspiracy  exist,  you  may  go  into  general 
evidence  of  its  nature  and  the  conduct  of  its  members,  so 
as  to  implicate  men  who  stand  charged  with  acting  upon 
the  terms  of  it,  years  after  those  terms  have  been  estab- 
lished, and  who  may  reside  at  a  great  distance  from  the 
place  where  the  general  plan  is  carried  on;  such  as  was 
done  in  the  cases  of  the  state  trials  in  the  year  1745; 
where,  from  the  nature  of  the  charge,  it  was  necessary 
to  go  into  evidence  of  what  was  going  on  at  Manchester, 
in  France,  Scotland  and  Ireland,  at  the  same  time. 

"  His  lordship  therefore  permitted  a  person  who  was 
a  member  of  this  society  to  prove  the  printed  rules  and 
regulations  of  the  society,  and  that  he  and  others  acted  un- 
der them  in  execution  of  the  conspiracy  charged  upon 
the  defendants  Hammond  and  Webb,  as  evidence  intro- 
ductory to  the  proof  that  they  were  members  of  this  so- 
ciety, and  equally  concerned — but  added,  that  it  would 
not  be  evidence  to  affect  the  defendant,  until  they  were 
made  parties  to  the  same  conspiracy." 

i  Rex  v.  Hammond,  2   Espinasse,  718. 

"  If  a  series  of  acts  are  to  be  performed  with  a  view  to 
produce  a  particular  result,  he  who  aids  in  the  perform- 
ance of  any  one  of  those  acts  in  order  to  bring  about  the 
result  must  have  the  intention  to  effectuate  the  end  pro- 
posed, and  if  he  operates  with  others,  knowing  them  to 
have  the  same  design,  there  is,  in  fact,  an  agreement  be- 
tween him  and  them;  his  criminal  intent  is  not  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  intent  of  those  who  first  formed  the 
plans  of  the  conspiracy." 

People  v.  Mather,  4  Wend.,  261. 

"  The  forms  of  the  evidence  are  multitudinous,  and  as 
to  the  act  of  conspiring;  which  is  the  gist  of  the  offense, 
it  maybe  circumstantial  as  well  as  direct.  Acts  per- 


formed  by  the  defendants  secretly,  yet  tending  to  the  one 
end,  together  with  the  relations  of  the  doers^  to  one  an- 
other, and  any  explanatory  facts  may  be  shown  as  justi- 
fying the  jury  in  inferring  whence  they  proceed;  but,  in- 
ferential or  otherwise,  the  connection  between  the  acts 
must  appear,  or  they  will  be  inadequate." 

2  Bish.  Crim.  Prac.,  Sec.  277. 

"  (Combining  may  be  made  to  appear  by  any  competent 
testimony,  and  then  the  separate  acts  and  declarations  of 
the  co-conspirators,  including  even  persons  not  indicted, 
mav  be  introduced." 

y 

Idem,  228. 

"The  actual  fact  of  conspiring  may  be  inferred,  as 
has  been  said,  from  circumstances,  and  the  concurring 
conduct  of  the  defendants  need  not  be  directly  proved. 
Any  joint  action  on  a  material  point,  or  collocation  of  in- 
dependent but  co-operative  acts,  by  persons  closely  as- 
sociated with  each  other,  is  held  to  be  sufficient  to  en- 
able the  jury  to  infer  concurrence  of  sentiment." 

Wharton  Crim.  L.,  Sec.   1,398. 

"  I  am  bound  to  tell  you  that  though  the  common 
design  is  the  root  of  the  charge,  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove 
that  these  two  parties  came  together  and  actually  agreed 
in  terms  to  have  this  common  design  and  to  pursue  it  by 
common  means  and  aid  to  carry  it  into  execution.  This 
is  not.  necessary,  because  in  many  cases  of  the  most 
clearly  established  conspiracies  there  are  no  means  of 
proving  any  such  thing.  Neither  law  nor  common 'sense 
requires  that  it  should  be  so  proved.  If  you  find  that 
these  two  persons  pursued  by  their  acts  the  same  object, 
often  by  the  same  means,  one  performing  one  part  of  an 
act  and  another  (mother part  of  the  same  act  so  as  to  com- 
plete it,  with  a  view  to  the  attainment  of  the  object  which 
they  were  pursuing,  you  will  be  at  liberty  to  draw  the  con- 
clusion that  they  were  engaged  in  a  conspiracy  to  effect 
that  object.  The  question  you  have  to  ask  yourselves  is: 
Had  they  this  common  design,  and  did  they  pursue  it  by 
these  common  means,  the  design  being  unlawful?" 

Reg.  v.  Murphy,  8  C.  &  P.,  310. 


"  In  a  case  of  high  treason  or  conspiracy  the  prosecutor 
may  either  prove  the  conspiracy,  which  renders  the  acts 
of  the  co-conspirators  admissible,  or  he  ma v  prove  the  act* 
of  the  diffierent  persons  and  thus  prove  the  conspiracy" 

Reg.  v.  Frost,  9  C.  &  P.,  129. 

In  the  same  case,  TYNDALL,  C.  J.,  said: 

"  A  conspiracy  ma\  be  shown  by  antecedent  acts,  but 
that  is  not  the  only  mode.  It  may  also  be  shown  by  acts 
done  afterwards  what  the  common  design  was. 

"  A  conspiracy  is  rarely,  if  ever,  proved  by  positive 
testimony.  When  a  crime  of  high  magnitude  is  about  to 
be  perpetrated  by  a  combination  of  individuals,  they  do 
not  act  openly,  but  covertly  and  secretly.  The  purpose 
formed  is  known  only  to  those  who  enter  into  it.  Unless 
one  of  the  original  conspirators  betray  his  companions 
and  give  evidence  against  them,  their  guilt  can  be  proved 
only  b\  circumstantial  evidence.  This  kind  of  evidence 
often  satisfies. a  jury  of  the  guilt  of  the  accused,  and  it  is 
claimed  by  some  writers  on  evidence  that  such  circum- 
stances are  stronger  than  positive  proof.  A  witness 
swearing  positively,  it  is  said,  may  misapprehend  the  facts 
and  swear  falsely,  but  that  circumstances  cannot  lie.  The 
common  design  is  the  essence  of  the  charge,  and  this  may 
be  made  to  appear  when  the  defendants  steadily  pursue 
the  same  object,  whether  acting  secretly  or  together,  by 
common  or  different  means,  all  leading  to  the  same 
unlawful  result." 

U.  S.  v.  Cole,  5  McLean,  601. 

The  actual  fact  of  conspiring  may  be  proven  by  col- 
.lateral  circumstances. 

King  v.  Parsons,  i  W.  Blacks  tone's  Rep., 

391- 

On  a  trial  for  forgery  in  pursuance  of  a  system  of  con- 
spiracy, other  forged  notes  are  admissible  in  evidence  to 
show  and  explain  the  system. 

"  In  order  to    prove  purpose  on  the  defendant's    part, 


i6 

system  is  relevant,  and  in  order  to  prove  system  isolated 
crimes  are  admissible  from  which  the  system ,  may  be  in- 
ferred. Conspiracy  cases  give  signal  illustration  of  the 
rule  here  stated.  The  acts  of  each  conspirator  emanate 
from  him  individually,  yet  when  they  are  a  part  of  a  sys- 
tem of  conspiracy  they  are  admissible  in  evidence  against 
his  co-conspirators,  although  each  component  act  may  con- 
stitute an  independent  o/etise" 

Card  v.  State  (Ind.),  9  N.  E.  R.,  591. 

"  On  a  trial  for  murder,  in  which  the  evidence  shows 
that  the  defendant  was  with  a  mob  of  miners  which  sur- 
rounded a  house  and  tried  to  drive  other  miners  out  of  it 
by  firing  several  shots  into  the  house,  during  the  perpe- 
tration of  which  deceased  was  killed,  but  fails  to  shoiv  that 
defendant  fired  the  shot,  evidence  of  the  facts  and  events 
of  a  strike  and  of  a  conspiracy  to  drive  out  new  men  who 
had  been  brought  in  to  work  the  mines,  which  led  up  to 
the  attack  on  the  house,  is  admissible,  as  also  is  evidence 
which  tended  to  show  the  history  of  the  trouble,  a  con- 
siderable part  of  which  took  place  before  there  were  any 
acts  of  violence  on  the  part  of  any  one,  and  before  it  is  cer- 
tain that  any  acts  of  violence  were  contemplated.  //  is 
proper  to  trace  the  growth  of  the  conspiracy  from  the  be- 
ginning. The  character  and  purpose  of  the  combination 
before  it  became  unlawful  had  a  tendencv  to  shed  light  up- 
on its  acts  afterwards." 

State  v.  McHahill  (la.),  30  N.  W.  R.,  553. 

Upon  a  charge  of  murdering  a  person  by  means  of  ex- 
plosive grenades,  evidence  of  other  deaths  and  wounds  suf- 
fered by  other.-  at  the  same  time  held  admissible  for  the 
purpose  of  proving-  the  character  of  the  grenades.  A  wit- 
ness being  called  to  .prove  that  he  manufactured  certain 
grenades,  by  which  the  death  in  question  had  been  caused, 
Held,  that  the  name  of  the  person  who  gave  the  order  for 
them  might  be  asked  as  a  fact  in.  the  transaction,  even 
though  he  had  not  then  been  shown  connected  with  the 

prisoners. 

Reg.  v.  Bernard,  i  F.  &  F.,  240. 


In  the  case  of  Campbell  v.  Commonwealth,  84  Penn< 
St.,  187,  a  case  growing  out  of  the  Molly  Maguire 
conspiracies,  the  theory  of  the  prosecution  was  that  the 
deceased  had  become  obnoxious  to  members  of  the  divis- 
ion or  association  of  which  the  prisoner  was  an  active 
member;  that  it  was  arranged  by  him  and  others  that  he 
.should  be  killed,  but  it  was  considered  unsafe  for  the 
offended  parties,  or  any  of  the  men  about  the  mines  of 
which  Jones  was  superintendent,  to  undertake  the  work, 
for  the  reason  that  such  a  course  would  be  more  likely  ta 
lead  to  detection,  and  it  was  therefore  arranged  that  mem- 
bers for  the  purpose  should  be  procured,  through  the 
instrumentality  of  the  Molly  Maguire  organization,  from 
some  division  of  the  society  whose  members  were  un- 
known to  Jones;  that  according  to  the  regulations  and 
practices  of  the  order  such  a  mode  of  procedure  was  not 
unusual  or  extraordinary;  that  such  services  were  ren- 
dered "  on  a  trade,"  as  it  was  termed  by  members  of  one 
division  to  those  of  another  in  return  for  similar  services; 
that  in  this  way,  through  these  instrumentalities,  the  de- 
fendant and  others  procured  Doyle,  Kelly  and  Kerrigan 
to  enter  upon  the  work  of  killing  Jones,  in  the  prosecu- 
tion of  which  they  were  counseled  and  encouraged  by 
him  and  those  with  whom  he  was  jointly  indicted. 

"  Such,  in  substance,  was  the  theory  of  the  common- 
wealth; and  the  learned  judge  instructed  the  jury  that 
if  the  evidence  satisfied  them  '  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt  that  Alexander  Campbell  alone,  or  together  with 
Carroll  and  McGehan,  or  either  of  them,  did  thus  pro- 
cure Doyle  or  Kelly,  or  either  of  them,  to  kill  Jones,  and 
Doyle  a-nd  Kelly,  in  pursuance  of  that  procurement,, 
counseling  or  command  on  the  part  of  Campbell,  actually 
did  kill  Jones,  then  Campbell  is  equally  guilty  with  Doyle 
and  Kelly,  or  either  of  them,  if  but  one  struck  the  fatal 
blow.'  In  considering  the  questions  thus  submitted  to 


i8 

them,  and  especially  whether  the  killing  was  by  pro- 
curement of  Campbell,  it  was  very  important,  that  the 
iury  should  be  fully  informed  of  all  the  circumstances 
that  would  tend  to  explain  his  connection  with  the  trans- 
action and  motives  by  which  the  parties  to  it  were  act- 
uated. Without  this  it  would  have  been  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  for  them  to  understand  how  Campbell  was 
able  to  procure  the  assassination  of  Jones  by  young  men 
who  were  entire  strangers  to  him,  and  to  whom  person- 
ally he  had  never  given  any  cause  of  offense;  what  mo- 
tive he  had  in  doing  so,  and  the  reasons  which  influenced 
them  in  consenting  to  waylay  and  kill  one  who.  so  far 
as  they  were  personally  concerned,  was  an  unoffending 
stranger.  The  evidence  complained  of  fended  to  shed  a 
flood  of  light  on  these  and  other  matters  which  -without  it 
vcould  hare  been  dark  and  almost  impenetrable.  The  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case  were  indeed  peculiar  and  extra- 
ordinary and_  without  proper  explanatory  testimony 
would  not  have  been  fully  and  fairly  comprehended  by 
the  jury.  As  a  general  rule  every  transaction  can  be 
best  understood  when  viewed  in  the  light  of  all  the  sur- 
rounding circumstances;  and  this  was  especially  true  in 
this  case.  It  was  for  these  purposes  that  the  evidence 
was  admitted,  and  very  properly  so,  we  think.  If  the 
labvrinths  of  crime  are  not  explored,  justice  will  be  often 
defrauded'"1 

••  Hut  it  is  observed  by  Mr.  Starkie  that  in  some  pecul- 
iar instances  in  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  establish  the 
defendant's  privity  without  first  proving  the  existence  of 
a  conspiracy,  a  deviation  has  been  made  from  the  general 
rule,  and  evidence  of  the  acts  and  conduct  of  others  has 
been  admitted  to  prove  the  existence  of  a  conspiracv  pre- 
vious to  the  proof  of  the  defendant's  privitv.  2  Stark,  £v., 
234.  2d  Ed.  So  it  seems  to  have  been  considered  by 
Mr.  Justice  Buller  that  evidence  might  be.  in  the  first  in- 
stance, given  of  a  conspirac\\  without  proof  of  the  defend- 
ant's participation  in  it.  *  In  indictments  of  this  kind,' 
he  says,  -there  are  two  things  to  be  considered:  First,, 
-whether  an\  conspiracv  exists,  and  next,  what  share  the 
prisoner  took  in  the  conspiracy."  He  afterwards  pro- 
reeds.  '  Before  the  evidence  of  the  conspiracy  can  affect 
the  prisoner  materially,  it  is  necessary  to  make  out 


'9 

another  point,  viz.,  that  he  consented  to  the  extent  that 
the  others  did.'  So,  in  the  course  of  the  same  trial, 
it  was  said  by  Eyre,  C.  J.,  that,  in  the  case  of  a  conspiracy, 
general  evidence  of  the  thing  conspired  is  received,  and 
then  the  party  before  the  court  is  to  be  affected  for  his 
share  of  it.  *  *  *  The  point  may  be  considered  as 
settled  ultimately  in  the  Queen's  case,  2  Brod.  &  Bing., 
310,  6  E.  C.  L.  R.,  where  the  following  rules  were  laid 
down  by  the  judge:  '  We  are  of  the  opinion  that,  on  the 
prosecution  of  a  crime  to  be  proved  by  conspiracy,  general 
evidence  of  a  conspiracy  may,  in  the  first  instance,  be  re- 
ceived as  a  preliminary  step  to  that  more  particular  evi- 
dence, by  which  it  is  to  be  shown  that  the  individual 
defendants  were  guilty  participators  in  such  conspiracy. 
This  is  often  necessary  to  render  the  particular  evidence 
intelligible,  and  to  show  the  true  meaning  and  character 
of  the  acts  of  the  individual  defendants.  But  it  is  to  be 
observed  in  such  cases,  the  general  nature  of  the  whole 
evidence  intended  to  be  adduced  is  previously  opened  to 
the  court,  whereby  the  judge  is  enabled  to  form  an  opin- 
ion as  to  the  probability  of  affecting  the  individual  defend- 
ants by  particular  proof  applicable  to  them,  and  con- 
necting them  with  the  general  evidence  of  the  alleged  con- 
spiracy ;  and  if,  upon  such  opening,  it  should  appear 
manifest  that  no  particular  proof  sufficient  to  affect  the 
defendants  is  intended  to  be  adduced,  it  would  become 
the  duty  of  the  judge  to  stop  the  case  ///  limine,  and  not 
to  allow  the  general  evidence  to  be  received,  which,  even 
if  attended  with  no  other  bad  effect,  such  as  exciting  an 
unreasonable  prejudice,  would  certainly  be  a  useless 

waste  of  time." 

***** 

••  It  has  since  been  held  that  the  prosecutor  mav  either 
prove  the  conspiracy,  which  renders  the  acts  of  the  con- 
spirators admissible  in  evidence,  or  he  may  prove  the  acts 
of  the  different  persons,  and  thus  prove  the  conspiracy. 
*  A  husband,  his  wife,  and  their  servants  were 
indicted  for  a  conspiracy  to  ruin  a  card-maker,  and  it  ap- 
peared that  each  had  given  money  to  the  apprentices  of 
the  prosecutor  to  put  grease  into  the  paste,  which  spoiled 
the  cards,  but  no  evidence  was  given  of  more  th  in  one  of 
the  defendants  being  present  at  the  same  time;  it  was  ob- 


2O 

jected  that  this  was  not  a  conspiracy,  there  being  no  evi- 
dence of  communication;  but  Pratt,  C.  J.,  ruled  that  the 
defendants,  being  all  of  one  family,  and  concerned  in 
making  cards,  this  was  evidence  of  a  conspiracy  to  go  to 
a  jury.  7P.  v.  Cope,  i  Str.,  144. 

"If  on  a  charge  of  conspiracy  it  appeared  that  two  per- 
sons by  their  acts  are  pursuing  the  same  object,  and  often 
by  the  same  means,  the  one  performing  part  of  an  act, 
and  the  other  completing  it  for  the  attainment  of  the  ob- 
ject, the  jury  may  draw  the  conclusion  that  there  is  a  con- 
spiracy. If  a  conspiracy  be  formed,  and  a  person  join  it 
afterwards,  he  is  equally  guilty  with  the  original  conspir- 
ators. 

****** 

"  The  existence  of  the  conspiracy  may  be  established 
either  as  above  stated,  by  evidence  of  the  acts  of  third  per- 
sons or  by  evidence  of  the  acts  of  the  prisoner,  and  of  any 
other  with  whom  he  is  attempted  to  be  connected,  con- 
curring together  at  the  same  time  and  for  the  same  ob- 
ject." 

Roscoe's  Crim.  Ev.,    414. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  authorities  that  the 
rules  of  evidence  as  applicable  to  conspiracy,  or  to  the 
case  of  a  prosecution  for  any  offense  which  is  based  upon 
a  conspiracy  (Whar.  Cr.  Ev.,  pth  Ed.,  701)  are  entirely 
different  in  many  respects  from  the  rules  of  evidence  ap- 
plicable to  other  prosecutions. 

In  a  prosecution  for  any  specific  crime,  it  is  an  element- 
ary rule  that  where  the  defendant  is  charged  with  one 
specific  act,  evidence  of  other  crimes  cannot  be  introduced 
against  him.  This  rule  is  subject  to  two  exceptions;  first, 
where  the  evidence  of  other  crimes  has  a  bearing  upon 
question  of  the  intent  with  which  the  party  did  the  act 
with  which  he  is  charged,  as,  for  instance,  in  a  case  for 
receiving,  where  the  proof  of  the  receipt  of  stolen  prop- 
erty prior  to  the  receiving  upon  which  the  prosecution  is 
based,  and  from  the  same  principal,  is  admissible  for  the 


21 

purpose  of  showing  guilty  knowledge  of  the  receiver; 
and  likewise  in  a  prosecution  for  passing  counterfeit 
money,  where  evidence  of  prior  possession  of  false  bills  is 
permissible  as  bearing  on  the  question  of  guilty  knowledge; 
and,  second,  as  will  be  seen  upon  reference  to  the  forego- 
ing authorities,  in  prosecutions  for  conspiracy,  where 
other  specific  crimes  are  parts  of  a  general  plan  and  shed 
light  upon  the  plan,  it  is  an  elementary  rule  that  res  inter 
alias  acta  cannot  be  introduced;  yet  it  will  be  seen,  from 
an  examination  of  the  foregoing  authorities,  that  in  prose- 
cutions for  conspiracy  they  can.  It  is  laid  down  in  those 
authorities  that  in  the  first  instance  the  conspiracy  may  be 
proven  by  the  acts  of  third  persons,  and  by  any  evidence 
which  tends  to  show  a  conspiracy  months  and  even  years 
before  the  defendant  had  any  connection  with  it  whatever. 
The  conspiracy  having  been  established,  the  defendants' 
connection  can  then  be  shown.  This  is  settled  law,  and 
yet  it  is  wholly  repugnant  to  the  rules  of  evidence  govern- 
ing the  trial  of  all  other  offenses.  The  authorities  show 
conclusively  that  a  conspiracy  may  be  shown  by  any 
evidence  which  tends  to  prove  it,  by  the  acts  and  declara- 
tions of  the  defendants  themselves,  by  acts  and  declara- 
tions of  co-conspirators,  made  in  pursuance  of  its  plans, 
whether  on  trial  or  not. 

This  simple  statement  of  the  rule  of  evidence  govern- 
ing trials  for  conspiracy,  and  about  the  correctness  of 
which  there  can  be  no  question,  disposes  of  a  vast  number 
of  objections  raised  by  the  defendants  to  the  introduction 
of  evidence  in  this  case. 

If,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  was,  in  the  county  of  Cook 
and  State  of  Illinois,  a  conspiracy  to  overthrow  the  law: 
to  overthrow  the  whole  social  fabric;  to  bring  about  a 


22 

new  order  of  society;  to  do  that  forcibly  and  against  the 
will  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  citizens;  if  men  were 
actually  preparing  to  bring  about  these  results,  certainly 
that  fact  can  be  shown  on  a  trial  in  court.  The  only  way 
it  can  be  shown  is  the  way  it  has  been  shown  in  this  case, 
by  proving  the  fact  of  the  conspiracy,  which  must  be 
proven  and  can  only  be  proven  by  the  acts  and  declara- 
tions of  those  who  were  members  of  that  conspiracy,  and 
by  proof  of  anything,  whether  the  acts  of  the  defendants 
themselves  or  of  third  persons,  which  throws  light  upon 
the  question  of  the  conspiracy,  by  proof  of  any  facts  or 
circumstances  which  tend  to  establish  the  existence  of  the 
conspiracy. 

If  this  be  'not  so,  if  conspiracies  cannot  be  established  in 
that  way,  they  cannot  be  established  at  all;  and  the  law  of 
the  land,  instead  of  being  the  sword  of  justice  which  shall 
protect  the  citizens  of  the  land,  becomes  the  bulwark  of 
defense,  behind  which  conspirators  and  assassins  can 
safely  rest. 

It  was  held  in  the  McCahill  case,  supra,  where  an  or- 
ganization which  was  originally  lawful  in  its  character 
afterwards  became  unlawful,  that  evidence  of  the  charac- 
ter, objects  and  purposes  of  the  organization  while  lawful 
could  be  shown,  in  order  to  throw  light  upon  its  objects 
and  purposes  after  it  became  unlawful. 

In  the  Campbell  case,  supra,  it  was  held  that  the  ob- 
jects and  methods  of  the  "  Molly  Maguire  "  organization 
could  be  shown,  and  was  based  explicitly  upon  the  ground 
that  only  in  that  way  could  a  jury  of  law-abiding  citizens 
be  made  to  believe  that  the  story  told  by  the  witnesses 
for  the  state  was  true.  In  other  words,  the  purposes  and 
objects  of  the  organization  were  introduced  for  the  pur- 


23 

pose  of  corroborating'  the  statements  of  the   prosecuting 
witnesses.     The  court  uses  this  language: 

"  Without  this,  it  would  have  been  difficult,  if  not  im- 
possible, for  them  to  understand  how  Campbell  was  able 
to  procure  the  assassination  of  Jones  by  young  men  who 
were  entire  strangers  to  him,  and  to  whom  personally  he 
had  never  given  any  cause  of  offense;  what  motive  they 
had  in  so  doing,  and  the  reasons  which  influenced  them 
in  consenting  to  waylay  and  kill  one  who,  so  far  as  they 
were  personally  concerned,  was  an  unoffending  stranger. 
The  evidence  complained  of  tended  to  shed  a  flood  of 
light  on  these  and  other  matters,  which,  without  it,  would 
have  been  dark  and  almost  impenetrable.  *..*•.*  // 
the  labyrinths  of  crime  arc  not  explored,  justice  ivill  often 
be  dejrauded." 

In  the  Hammond  case,  supra,  Lord  Kenyon  held  that 
general  evidence  of  the  nature  of  a  conspiracy  could  be 
given,  and  the  conduct  of  its  principals,  so  as  to  impli- 
cate men  who  stand  charged  with  acting  upon  its  terms, 
years  after  those  terms  have  been  established;  and  refers 
/to  the  state  trials  of  1745,  where,  from  the  nature  of  the 
charge,  it  was  necessary  to  go  into  the  evidence  of  what 
was  going  on  at  Manchester,  in  France,  Scotland  and 
Ireland  at  the  same  time,  and  permitted  evidence  of  the 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  society  before  any  evidence 
had  been  introduced  of  the  defendant's  connection  with  it. 

In  this  case,  objection  is  made  to  the  introduction  of 
articles  from  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  the  Alarm  and  the 
Anarchist,  and  to  the  introduction  of  evidence  of  speeches 
made  by  various  of  the  defendants  at  different  times  prior 
to  the  throwing  of  the  bomb. 

These  papers  and  these  speeches  were  the  acts  and  the 
declarations  of  the  defendants  themselves.  There  can  be 
no  question  that  the  evidence  had  a  tendency  to  establish 


24 

Ihe  fact  of  a  conspiracy,  and  if  it  is  admissible  (about 
which  there  can  be  no  question)  to  introduce  evidence  of 
the  acts  and  declarations,  the  res  inter  alias  acta,  of  third 
persons,  certainly  it  is  admissible  to  introduce  the  declara- 
tions and  acts  of  the  defendants  themselves. 

The  Alarm  was  the  organ  of  the  "  International,"  as 
Parsons  himself  stated  at  the  meetings  of  the  American 
group. 

The  Arbeiter  Zeitung  was  the  organ  of  the  "  Interna- 
tional," and  was  under  the  control  of  the  defendant  Spies. 
Schwab  was  the  editor  next  in  charge. 

The  sole  object  of  the  existence  of  these  two  papers, 
as  is  apparent  from  the  articles  introduced  in  evidence  in 
this  case,  was  to  advocate  the  cause  of  the  "  social  revolu- 
tion," to  bring  it  about  by  force,  and  to  educate  their 
readers  for  the  practical  work  of  attaining  that  result. 
These  papers  not  only  advocated  the  bringing  about  of 
this  revolution,  and  bringing  it  about  by  force,  against  the 
wishes  and  desires  of  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
country,  but  actually,  from  day  to  day,  published  the  most 
minute  and  practical  descriptions  for  the  preparations  of 
the  means  of  warfare  by  which  the  revolution  could  be 
inaugurated. 

The  Anarchist,  as  Engel,  its  publisher,  himself  said  at 
the  meeting  at  Neff's  Hall,  was  established  for  the  reason 
that  those  who  had  established  it  considered  that  the  Ar- 
beiter Zeitung  was  not  radical  enough. 

How  can  a  conspiracy  be  established  if  it  cannot  be  es- 
tablished by  the  declarations  and  acts  of  its  members? 
What  better  proof  can  we  have  of  the  intentions  of  men 


25 

than  the  declarations  which   they  themselves  make  in  re- 
gard to  those  intentions? 

Complaint  is  made  especially  as  to  the  reports  of  meet- 
ings contained  in  those  papers;  but  the  publication  of  those 
reports  was  calculated  to  aid  the  cause  of  the  revolution- 
ists. They  were  undoubtedly  published  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the  revolutionists.  The  re- 
publication  of  speeches  made  at  those  meetings  was  in 
itself  an  advocacy  of  the  cause  of  the  revolutionists,  and 
at  the  same  time  advice  to  the  members  of  the  conspiracy. 
The  speeches  and  articles  introduced  in  evidence  were  all 
acts  in  furtherance  of  the  conspiracy. 

Complaint  is  also  made  of  the  introduction  of  Most's 
book  in  evidence. 

It  appears  from  the  evidence  that  Lingg  told  Schaack 
that  he  had  learned  the  method  of  making  bombs  from 
this  book.  It  appears  also  in  evidence  that  Fischer  told 
Bonfield  that  he  had  learned  the  use  of  the  fulminating 
•cap  from  Most's  book.  This  evidence  alone  would  ren- 
der the  book  competent  as  against  these  two  defendants; 
but  when  we  remember  that  the  evidence  shows,  without 
contradiction,  that  large  quantities  of  the  book  were  kept 
at  the  library  of  the  general  committee  of  the  "  Interna- 
tional;" that  the  book  was  sold  at  the  picnics  of  the  "  Inter- 
national;" that  announcement  was  made  in  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung,  among  the  editorial  notices  inserted  without  pay, 
that  the  book  was  ready  for  distribution;  that  large  por- 
tions of  it,  translated  into  English,  were  reprinted  in  the 
Alarm;  and  when  we  consider  the  nature  of  the  book 
itself,  there  can  be  no  question  that  it  is  admissible  against 
^very  member  of  that  conspiracy. 

Suppose  a   man  were   indicted   for  poisoning,  charged 


26 

with  administering  some  occult  poison,  which  could  be 
manufactured  only  according  to  some  formula"  but  little 
known,  and  which,  in  order  to  be  effective,  must  be  ad- 
ministered in  a  certain  way.  -  Would  it  not  be  admissible 
to  show  that  the  man  charged  with  the  offense  had  in  his 
possession  a  book  describing  the  formula,  and  the  means 
of  administering  it?  Suppose,  further,  that  the  poisor> 
could  be  manufactured  and  administered  only  by  a  con- 
cert of  action  among  different  individuals,  would  it  not 
be  competent  to  show  that  the  same  book  had  been  cir- 
culated by  parties  to  the  conspiracy  among  the  conspira- 
tors? 

Most's  book,  upon  its  face,  shows  its  purposes  and 
shows  its  object.  It  was  published  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  assisting  the  cause  of  the  "  social  revolutionists," 
for  the  express  purpose  of  informing  those  ignorant  of 
chemistry  of  the  method  by  which  explosives  could  be 
manufactured,  and  the  method  in  which  they  should  be 
used;  and  the  book  itself  proves  that  the  author  of  it  was 
a  member  of  the  same  general  conspiracy  to  which  the 
defendants  themselves  belonged.  He  was  their  com- 
rade— "Comrade  Johann  Most" — engaged  in  the  same 
nefarious  purpose,  by  the  same  nefarious  means,  and 
if  there  were  no  other  ground  for  its  admission  it 
would  be  admissible  in  this  case  upon  the  ground  that  it 
is  the  declaration  of  one  conspirator  made  to  others,  in 
furtherance  of  the  common  design. 

Complaint  is  also  made  in  this  case  to  the  introduction 
in  evidence  of  bombs  and  fire  cans  discovered  after  the 
meeting  at  the  Haymarket. 

The  complaint  is  twofold:  First,  that  they  are  res 
inter  alios  ac/a,  the  connection  of  the  defendants  with  them 


27 

not  being  shown  by  the  evidence,  and,  second,  that  they 
were  discovered  so  long  after  the  Hay  market  that  they 
might  have  been  manufactured  for  the  purpose  of  preju- 
dicing the  case  of  the  defendants. 

So  far  as  the  second  objection  is  made,  that  is  a 
question  for  the  jury.  It  is  an  objection  which  may  be 
made  against  any  other  species  of  circumstantial  evi- 
dence, and  in  this  case  the  counsel  themselves  set  up  the 
ridiculous  pretext  that  the  five  or  six  pounds  of  dynamite 
found  in  the  office  of  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  early  in  the 
morning  after  the  bomb  was  thrown  was  placed  there 
to  injure  the  immaculate  occupants  of  that  office,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  Spies  himself  admitted  to  the 
reporters  that  his  office  was  "  more  warlike  than  some," 
and  that  he  for  months  had  had  in  his  possession  dyna- 
mite and  bombs  for  the  purpose,  as  he  says,  of  experi- 
menting with  them  and  learning  their  use.  The  fact  that 
they  were  not  found  for  days  after  the  Haymarket  is  a 
fact  which  it  was  proper  for  the  jury  to  take  into  consid- 
eration, but  does  not  affect  the  question  of  their  admissi- 
bility.  As  to  the  first  point,  res  inter  alias  acta  is  ad- 
missible in  prosecutions  for  conspiracy,  and  for  offenses 
based  upon  conspiracy — any  evidence  which  tends  to  es- 
tablish the  conspiracy.  The  finding  of  these  articles  cer- 
tainly proves  that  some  one  had  prepared  them  for  some 
purpose.  For  what  purpose  could  they  have  been  pre- 
pared, or  could  they  have  been  used,  except  for  the  pur- 
pose of  the  "revolutionists"?  Who  is  there  on  the  face 
of  the  earth  who  ever  manufactured  bombs  of  that  kind,  or 
fire  cans  of  that  sort,  except  revolutionists,  men  who  were 
instigated  thereto  by  the  diabolism  such  as  that  of  Most's 
book,  by  the  teachings  and  advice  of  his  comrades?  More- 
over, the  bombs  and  fire  cans  which  were  not  traced  di- 


28 

rectly  to  the  defendants  were  all  found  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Wicker  Park,  and  it  is  in  evidence  in  the  case 
that  at  the  meeting  at  Greif's  Hall  it  was  determined  that 
members  of  the  conspiracy  should  assemble  at  Wicker 
Park,  to  await  there  the  announcement  which  should  come 
lo  them  from  the  committee.  And  it  appears  also  from 
the  evidence  that  L-ingg,  Seliger  and  Lehmann,  after 
hearing  of  the  Haymarket,  hid  their  bombs  and  dyna- 
mite in  just  such  a  manner  as  the  bombs  and  fire  cans 
mentioned  were  hid. 

The  tendency  of  that  evidence  certainly  is  to  establish 
the  fact  of  the  conspiracy,  and,  having  a  tendency  to  es- 
tablish that  fact,  they  are  admissible  in  evidence.  The 
weight  of  the  evidence  is  a  question  for  the  jury;  the 
only  question  for  the  court,  the  competency. 

Moreover,  Spies,  in  his  declaration  to  Wilkinson,  stated 
that  there  were  thousands  of  bombs  scattered  all  over  the 
city,  in  the  hands  of  men  who  knew  how  to  use  them,  and 
who  would  use  them  when  the  time  came.  The  fact  of 
the  finding  of  those  bombs  shows  that  there  were  bombs 
scattered  throughout  the  city. 

It  is  strongly  insisted  that  the  court  erred  in  admitting 
the  introduction  of  the  letter  from  Most  to  Spies,  upon  the 
cross-examination  of  Spies.  (The  letter  appears  in  Vol. 
N,  105.) 

A  number  of  authorities  are  cited  by  counsel  to  sustain 
their  objection.  One  of  them,  the  case  of  Giffordv.  The 
People,  87  111.,  210,  is  a  case  differing  entirely  in  the  facts 
from  the  one  here.  Gifford  was  indicted  for  rape.  The 
illicit  intercourse  was  not  denied.  The  only  question  in 
the  case  was,  as  to  the  consent  of  the  prosecutrix.  Upon 


29 

cross-examination,  a  witness  named  Washburne  was 
asked:  "  Have  you  not  heard  people  say  that  he  (the 
"  defendant)  was  a  gambler?"  The  witness  answered 
that  he  had  heard  somebody  say  that  he  gambled.  The 
defendant  himself,  upon  his  cross-examination,  was  com- 
pelled to  state  that  he  had  visited  houses  of  ill-fame  in 
Cleveland  and  Chicago  a  number  of  times,  and  also  that 
he  had  played  cards  for  money.  There  can  be  no  ques- 
tion that  the  introduction  of  this  evidence  was  irrelevant. 
It  pertained  to  matters  having  no  connection  whatever 
with  the  case  on  trial.  He  may  have  been  a  gambler, 
but  that  fact  would  throw  no  light  upon  the  question  of 
his  guilt  upon  a  charge  of  rape.  He  may  also  have  vis- 
ited houses  of  ill-fame,  but  that  would  throw  no  light 
upon  the  question,  because  in  a  prosecution  for  rape,  the 
gist  of  the  offense  is  that  the  act  is  done  with  force,  and 
against  the  will  of  the  prosecutrix.  No  one  denies  that 
proof  of  independent  acts  of  crime,  having  no  relation 
whatever  with  the  crime  charged,  and  not  being  part  of 
the  system,  are  inadmissible. 

The  case  of  Commonwealth  v.  Edgerly^  10  Allen,  184, 
was  an  indictment  for  having  counterfeit  bills,  with  intent 
to  pass  them.  There  was  no  element  of  conspiracy  in  the 
case.  The  letter  introduced  in  evidence  was  a  letter 
found  upon  the  person  of  the  defendant,  never  having 
been  by  him  opened,  and  the  contents  being  to  him  un- 
known. There  is  nothing  in  the  case  which  shows  that 
that  letter  was  in  the  nature  of  a  declaration  made  by  one 
co-conspirator  to  another. 

In  this  case  the  letter  of  Most  introduced  in  evidence 
was  a  declaration  of  one  co-conspirator  made  to  another 
in  furtherance  of  the  common  design.  It  is  true  that  the 


30 

letter  has  no  reference  to  the  crime  at  the  Haj  market,  to 
that  specific  act,  but  it  must  be  recollected  that  in  this  case 
the  conspiracy  complained  of  was  a  general  one  to  over- 
throw the  laws  of  the  land;  that  the  crime  at  the  Hay- 
market  was  but  an  incident  to  the  conspiracy.  The 
throwing  of  the  bomb  at  the  Haymarket  was  by  no  means 
the  culmination  of  the  conspiracy,  and  even  had  the  con- 
spirators succeeded  that  night  in  placing  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago at  their  disposal,  that  fact  would  not  have  culminated 
the  conspiracy.  The  general  conspiracy,  from  anything 
which  appears  in  this  record,  may  still  be  in  existence,  and, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  doubtless  is.  The  letter  of  Most  to 
Spies  was  in  furtherance  of  this  general  conspiracy,  as 
appears  from  its  contents.  It  has  always  been  helcf  that 
a  letter  from  one  co-conspirator  to  another  in  furtherance 
of  the  conspiracy  is  admissible  in  evidence.  Indeed,  the 
courts  go  further  than  that. 

In  the  case  of  Card' v*  the  State  (Ind.),  Vol.  9  N.  E. 
R.,  591,  the  indictment  charged  that  Card  and  one  Strain 
forged  a  certain  note.  Card  was  tried  separately.  It  ap- 
peared in  evidence  that  the  forgery  of  that  note  was  the 
result  of  a  conspiracy  to  forge  notes  generally  and  was 
only  one  act  in  a  system  of  forgeries.  A  letter  from 
Marshall  to  Mikels,  neither  one  of  whom  was  indicted, 
was  introduced  in  evidence,  as  the  court  held  properly,  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  the  declaration  of  one  co-con- 
spirator to  another. 

Certainly,  if  a  letter  which  the  conspirator  on  trial  has 
never  received  and  has  never  even  seen  is  admissible 
against  him,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  the  act  of  one  of 
his  co-conspirators,  a  letter  written  to  the  defendant,  re- 
ceived and  read  by  him,  is  admissible,  if  it  were  the  de- 
claration of  a  co-conspirator. 


31 

To  the  same  effect  is: 

Rex  v.  Stone,  6  Durn.  &  E.,  527. 

In  the  case  of  State  v.  Winner,  17  Kans.,  300,  four 
telegrams  were  introduced  in  evidence,  two  of  them  pur- 
porting to  have  been  signed  by  Winner,  one  by  McNutt, 
a  co-conspirator  (not  on  trial),  and  one  bv  Seiver,  the 
victim  of  the  conspiracy. 

The  court  say:    . 

"We  think  there  is  no  other  evidence  tending  to  -show  that 
Winner  (the  defendant  on  trial)  sent  said  dispatch  No.  i. 
In  all  probability  he  sent  it;  but  even  if  he  did  not,  still  it 
was  received  by  McNutt,  a  co-conspirator  and  partner  in 
guilt  as  well  as  in  business,  and  was  received  in  further- 
ance of  their  common  design  and  purposes,  and  therefore 
for  that  reason  it  was  admissible  in  evidence." 

In  the  case  of  .Reg.  v.  Bernard,  I  F.  &  F.,  250,  a  letter 
in  the  handwriting  of  one  Allsop,  who  up  to  that  time  had 
not  been  shown  to  be  a  co-conspirator,  and  which  bore  a 
memorandum  in  the  handwriting  of  the  prisoner,  was  ad- 
mitted in  evidence. 

Lord  CAMPBELL  (C.  J.)  said  that  they  "  were  unani- 
mously of  the  opinion  that  the  letter  was  admissible.  It 
would  be  for  the  jury  to  form  their  own  opinions  of  its 
bearing.  The  letter  was  found  at  the  lodgings  of  the 
prisoner,  with  his  handwriting  upon  it.  It  must,  there- 
fore, be  assumed  to  have  been  in  his  possession,  and  it 
must  be  admitted,  not  on  the  ground  that  the  writer  of 
the  letter  was  a  co-conspirator  with  the  prisoner  (for  that 
fact  had  not  appeared  at  that  time),  but  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  in  the  prisoner's  possession,  and  that  its  con- 
tents were  relevant  to  the  present  inquiry.  He  was  of 
opinion  that  the  letter  had  been  found  in  the  possession  of 
the  prisoner,  and  that  the  context  was  relevant,  and  in 
that  opinion  all  his  learned  brethren  on  the  bench  con- 
curred." 


32 

In  the  case  of  C.,  R.  1.  &  P.  Co,  v.  Collins,  56  111.,  212, 
Collins  brought  an  action  against  the  company  to  recover 
for  a  trunk  and  its  contents.  Duggan  was  not  a  party 
to  the  suit.  The  defendant  offered  in  evidence  a  letter 
from  Duggan  to  his  cousin  Manyon.  The  object  of  the 
letter  was  the  fabrication  of  evidence. 

The  court  say: 

"  There  was  sufficient  evidence  of  a  community  of  in- 
terest and  design  between  Collins  and  Duggan  to  have 
rendered  this  letter  of  Duggan  admissible  in  evidence  as 
against  Collins  to  show  a  conspiracy  between  them  to  de- 
fraud the  railroad  company." 

And,  because  of  the  refusal  of  the  lower  court  to  admit 
the  letter,  the  case  was  reversed. 

Certainly  if  the  letter  from  Duggan  to  Manyon,  Man- 
yon  himself  not  being  a  conspirator  or  having  no  connec- 
tion with  the  case,  Collins  never  having  seen  the  letter  or 
had  it  in  his  possession,  or,  so  far  as  the  case  showed, 
known  anything  about  it,  was  admissible  as  against  Col- 
lins, there  can  be  no  question  that  the  letter,  if  directed 
to  Collins,  found  in  his  possession  and  read  by  him,  would 
be  admissible.  That  being  so,  Collins'  case  is  decisive 
upon  this  question. 

The  only  possible  objection  that  can  be  raised  to  the 
introduction  of  this  letter  grows  merely  out  of  the  order  of 
proof;  and  the  introduction  of  evidence — the  order  of  its 
introduction — we  understand  is  somewhat  discretionary 
with  the  trial  court;  and  certainly  the  fact  that  the  letter 
was  introduced  out  of  its  order  would  not  be  error  suffi- 
cient to  reverse  this  case,  where  it  is  clear  beyond  all  ques- 
tion that  the  letter  was  competent  in  the  first  instance. 

It  is  also  urged  that,  in   the  cross-examination  of  those 


33 

of  the  defendants    who  took   the  stand,   the    defendants 
were  compelled  to  give  evidence  against  themselves. 

Certainly,  if  the  ordinary  rules  of  cross-examination 
were  observed,  no  objection  can  be  made  upon  this 
ground,  unless  the  giving  of  evidence  against  themselves 
is  a  violation  of  the  constitutional  provision  that  defend- 
ants shall  not  be  compelled  to  give  evidence  against  them- 
selves. But  we  understand  the  rule  to  be,  that  a  defend- 
ant when  he  takes  the  stand  is  subject  to  the  same  rules 
of  cross-examination  as  any  other  witness,  and  that  for 
the  time  being  his  position  of  defendant  is  merged  in  that 
of  witness,  and  that  it  is  proper  to  examine  him  upon  any 
subject  connected  with  the  direct  examination,  which  it 
would  be  proper  to  examine  any  other  witness  upon. 
There  can  be  no  question  about  this  position,  as  the  law 
is  now  well  settled. 

"  If  a  defendant  offers  himself  as  a  witness  to  disprove 
a  criminal  charge,  can  he  excuse  himself  from  answering, 
upon  the  ground  that  by  so  doing  he  would  criminate 
himself  ?  This  question  has  been  much  agitated  since 
the  passing  of  enabling  statutes,  and  the  conclusion  is 
that,  so  far  as  concerns  questions  touching  the  merits,  the 
defendant,  by  making  himself  a  witness  as  to  the  offense, 
waives  his  privileges  to  all  matters  connected  with  the 
offense.  It  has  been  ruled  also  that,  to  affect  his  credi- 
bility, he  may  be  asked  whether  he  has  been  in  prison  on 
other  charges,  whether  he  has  suborned  testimony  in  the 
particular  case,  and  ivhcther  he  has  been  concerned  in  other 
crimes,  part  of  the  same  system" 

Whar.  Crim.  Ev.,  Sec.  432. 

As  to  the  objection  made,  that  many  of  the  articles  in- 
troduced in  evidence  had  been  seized  by  the  prosecution, 
perhaps  unlawfully,  and  that  the  introduction  of  them  in 
evidence  was  for  that  reason  a  violation  of  the  constitu- 
tional guaranty  that  defendants  could  not  be  compelled  to 


34 

give  evidence  against  themselves,   we  desire  to  say  but 
very  little. 

The  defendants  were  not  compelled  to  produce  these 
articles.  The  state  produced  them.  How  the  state  ob- 
tained them  cannot  be  material  to  the  question. 

The  case  of  Boyd  v.  U,  S.,  116  U.  S.,  616,  has  a  bear- 
ing upon  this  question. 

That  was  a  case  which  passed  upon  the  constitutional- 
ity of  an  act  of  Congress  authorizing  courts  to,  in  effect, 
compel  defendants  in  certain  criminal  cases  to  produce 
the  evidence  which  should  be  used  against  them.  It  does 
not  require  any  opinion  of  the  Supreme  court  of  the 
United  States  to  convince  anybody  that  such  a  rule  would, 
in  effect,  compel  a  defendant  to  testify  against  himself. 

In  this  case,  however,  the  defendants  produced  nothing. 
The  state  produced  it;  and  whether  the  state  got  hold  of 
it  properly  does  not  affect  the  question  whether  the  de- 
fendants produced  it  or  were  compelled  to  produce  it. 

Complaint  is -made  of  the  fact  that  evidence  was  intro- 
duced showing  that  Rudolph  Schnaubelt,  after  the  Hay- 
market  meeting  shaved  off  his  beard  and  clipped  his 
mustache.  It  was  stated  at  the  time  of  the  introduction 
of  the  evidence  that  it  was  for  the  purpose  of  identifica- 
tion. The  evidence  is  relevant  and  competent  for  this 
reason:  Gilmer  has  sworn  that  Schnaubelt  had,  at  the 
time  he  saw  him  standing  in  the  alley  at  the  Haymarket, 
a  beard.  In  the  photograph  introduced  in  evidence  in  the 
case  he  appears  as  wearing  a  beard.  Gilmer  testified  that 
he  told  the  officers  about  what  he  saw  at  the  Haymarket 
two  days  after  the  bomb  was  thrown.  It  is  in  evidence 
also  that  Schnaubelt  was  arrested  and  confined  in  the 
Central  station,  the  same  station  at  which  Gilmer  made 


35 

his  statements.  From  that  it  could  have  been  argued  that 
Gilmer  did  not  give  the  description  of  a  man,  or  if  he 
had  he  would  not  have  been  arrested.  The  evidence 
was  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  at  the 
time  Schnaubelt  was  under  arrest  he  had  no  beard;  that 
his  beard  was  taken  off  prior  to  his  arrest,  and  after  the 
meeting  at  the  Haymarket,  and  that  for  that  reason  the 
officers  would  not  recognize  him  as  the  man  described  by 
Gilmer. 

A  number  of  points  have  been  raised  by  counsel  as  to 
the  admissibility  of  evidence  in  the  case,  which  we  have 
not  the  time  to  consider  separately;  but  we  insist  that,  if 
our  propositions  as  to  the  rules  of  evidence  governing  the 
trial  of  cases  based  upon  conspiracy  be  correct,  no  error 
has  been  committed  in  the  introduction  of  evidence  which 
is  material.  It  is  possible  that  there  may  be  some  minor 
points  in  the  evidence  not  strictly  competent;  but  cer- 
tainly no  evidence,  has  been  introduced  improperly  which 
is  material  in  the  case,  or  which  has  affected  the  final 
result.  The  introduction  of  the  evidence  in  the  case  took 
weeks,  and  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  a  trial  involving  as 
wide  a  range  of  evidence  as  this  to  be  conducted  without 
some  error  being  committed  upon  minor  points. 

"  Where  the  result  reached  by  a  judgment  is  clearly 
right,  it  will  never  be  reversed  for  errors  which  do  not 
affect  the  substantial  merits  of  the  case." 

Wilson  v.  The  People,  94  111.,  327. 

Calhoun  v.  O'Neill,  53  111.,  354. 
Leach  \.  People,  53  111.,  311. 
.   Clark  v.  Same,  31  111.,  479. 

Richmond '  v.  Same,  no  111.,  371. 

Lander  v.  Same,  104  111.,  250. 
State  v.   Winner,  17  Kan.,  304. 


IV. 
THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ACCESSORIES. 

Where  advice  to  murder  instigates  murder  the  adviser  is 
guilty,  even 

(«.)  If  the  -perpetrator  is  unknown:  Provided  the 
proof  shows  that  the  act  was  caused  by  the  advice. 

Neither  of  the  defendants,  Spies,  Schwab,  Neebe, 
Parsons,  Fielden,  Fischer,  Lingg  or  Engel,  himself  act- 
ually threw  the  bomb,  but,  as  we  claim  from  the  record, 
each  of  the  said  eight  defendants  was  an  abettor,  adviser 
and  encourager  of  that  murderous  act.  It  is  not  at  all 
important  to  make  a  distinction  between  "  principal  "  and 
"  accessory,"  so  far  as  the  indictment  is  concerned.  If  the 
defendants,  or  any  of  them,  are  accessory  to  the  murder 
charged,  then  such  defendants  are  guilty  of  that  murder, 
and  they  may  be  charged  as  principals.  The  statute  is  as 
follows: 

"  An  accessory  is  he  who  stands  by  and  aids,  abets  or 
assists,  or  who,  not  being  present,  aiding,  abetting  or 
assisting,  hath  advised,  encouraged,  aided  or  abetted  the 
perpetration  of  the  crime.  He  who  thus  aids,  abets, 
assists,  advises  or  encourages  shall  be  considered  as  prin- 
cipal and  punished  accordingly. 

"  Every  such  accessory,  when  a  crime  is  committed 
within  or  without  this  state  by  his  aid  or  procurement  in 
this  state,  may  be  indicted  and  convicted  at  the  same  time 
as  the  principal,  or  before  or  after  his  conviction,  and 
whether  the  principal  is  convicted  or  amenable  to  justice  or 
not,  and  punished  as  principal." 

R.  S.,  Chap.  38,  Sees.  274,  275. 


37 

If  a  defendant  is  accessory,  before  the  fact,  to  the  crime 
of  murder,  he  may  be  charged  in  the  indictment  as  prin- 
cipal and  punished  accordingly. 

In  Baxter  v.  The  People,  3  Gil.,  368,  the  court,  in  com- 
menting upon  the  accessory  statute  of  this  state,  ask  this 
question:  "  The  inquiry  is,  whether  proof  that  the  pris- 
"  oner  was  accessory  to  the  crime  before  the  fact  will 
"  sustain  an  indictment  against  him  as  principal?"  and 
say : 

"The  act  says  all  such  accessories  shall  be  deemed  and 
considered  as  principals,  and  punished  accordingly.  This 
act,  then,  makes  all  accessories,  at  or  before  the  fact,  prin- 
cipals. The  declaration  that  they  shall  be  deemed  and 
considered  is  as  unequivocally  expressed  as  if  the  act  had 
said,  are  hereby  declared  to  be.  It  is  true  the  act 
states  what  an  accessory  is,  but  then  it  declares,  in  sub- 
stance, that  he  is  principal.  It  was  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  system  pursued  by  the  legislature  to  go  on  and 
define  what  an  accessory  is,  as  it  has  defined  all  other 
offenses  which  it  has  attempted  to  enumerate,  and  it  does 
not  detract  from  the  force  of  the  provision  that  they  shall 
be  deemed  and  considered  as  principals.  The  distinction 
between  accessories  before  the  fact  and  principals  is,  in 
fact,  abolished.  At  the  common  law,  an  accessory  at  the 
fact  might  be  indicted  and  convicted  as  the  principal;  for 
the  common  law  declares  that  he  who  stands  by,  advises 
and  encourages  the  murderer  to  give  the  blow  gives  the 
blow  himself,  as  much  as  if  he  held  the  weapon  in  his  own 
hands. 

"  Our  legislature  has  gone  one  step  further,  and  pro- 
vided that  he  who,  not  being  present,  hath  advised  or  en- 
couraged the  giving  of  the  blow,  hath  given  the  blow  as 
much  as  if  he  had  stood  by  and  encouraged  it,  or  even 
had  struck  with  his  own  hands.  It  is  no  more  a  fiction 
of  law  to  declare  that  he  gives  the  blow  by  advising  and 
encouraging  it  beforehand  than  it  is  to  affirm  that  he  gives 
it  by  advising  and  encouraging  it  at  the  time. 

"  Then,  as  by  the  law  in  this  case  the  acts  of  the  prin- 
cipal are  made  the  acts  of  the  accessory,  he  thereby  be- 


38 

comes  the  principal,  and  may  be  charged  as  having-  done 
the  acts  himself.  He  shall  be  deemed  and  considered  as 
principal,  and  be  punished  accordingly." 

By  every  decision  rendered  by  our  court,  the  indict- 
ment in  the  case  at  bar  would  have  been  sufficient,  abso- 
lutely, if  the  trial  had  proceeded  alone  upon  the  first  count 
thereof. 

In  Dempsey  v.  The  People,  47  111.,  326,  objection  was 
raised  that  the  indictment  was  for  murder  against  Dempsey 
as  principal.  The  Supreme  court  says  that  the  objection 
is  not  well  taken,  and  further  says: 

"  Our  statute  declares  an  accessory  before  the  fact  to 
be  a  person  who  stands  by  and  aids,  abets  or  assists;  or 
who,  not  being  present,  aiding,  abetting  or  assisting,  and 
advises  or  encourages,  shall  be  made  a  principal  and 
punished  accordingly.  The  statute  having  declared  such 
persons  principals,  no  reason  is  perceived  why  they  were 
not  to  be  indicted  as  such." 

Hence,  it  is  not  so  important,  under  our  statute,  to 
have  precise  and  learned  definitions  of  "  accessory  "  and 
"  principal,"  as  to  determine  what  relation  the  eight  con- 
victed defendants  bear  to  the  atrocious  murder — what  is 
their  responsibility  for  the  act,  to  which  history  furnishes 
no  parallel. 

First.  In  answer  to  the  proposition  of  defendants'  counsel, 
we  maintain  that  at  common  law  the  accessory  may  be 
guilty  of  the  substantive  crime,  even  if  the  principal  is  not 
pointed  out  and  in  fact  is  unknown. 

Some  one,  other  than  defendants,  actually  threw  the 
bomb.  Suppose  his  name  and  identity  are  unknown,  the 
defendants  would  clearly  be  liable  if  they  "  abetted,  ad- 
vised or  encouraged  "  the  "  act,"  although  it  did  not  ap- 
pear in  evidence  that  they  knew  the  perpetrator.  If  de- 


39 

fendants  advised  and  encouraged  the  commission  of  the 
crime  and  the  state  fails  to  show  the  precise  individual 
who  commits  the  crime,  the  requirements  of  our  statute 
are  fulfilled,  because  it  says  that  "  an  accessory  is  he  who 
•'  stands  by  and  aids,  abets  or  assists,  or  who,  not  being 
"  present,  aiding,  abetting  or  assisting,  hath  advised,  en- 
"  couraged,  aided  or  abetted  the  perpetration  of  the  crime" 

Archbold  says  (Pr.  and  Pl.,Vol.  I,  p.  67)  if  the  principal 
felon  be  unknown,  the  indictment  of  the  accessory  may 
state  it  accordingly. 

Through  all  the  authorities,  where  the  common  law 
distinction  between  principals  and  accessories  prevails,  the 
only  modification  of  the  above  rule  announced  by  Arch- 
bold  is,  that  if  the  principal  is  declared  unknown  in  the 
indictment,  and  the  proof  on  the  trial  shows  that  he  is 
known,  there  would  be  a  fatal  variance. 

'Rex  v.   Walker,  3  Camp.,  264. 
Rex  v.  Blick,  4  C.  &  P.,  377. 

In  other  words,  if  the  indictment  alleges  the  principal 
unknown  and  the  proof  shows  him  unknown,  there  is  no 
variance  and  the  conviction  follows.  If  some  unknown 
person  commits  a  crime  at  the  instigation  of  A,  and  the 
proof  shows  such  principal  unknown,  but  that  A  coun- 
seled and  encouraged  the  commission  of  that  particular 
crime,  it  would  be  a  monstrous  doctrine  to  say  that  A, 
although  guilty,  could  not  be  convicted  because  he  had 
not  kindly  furnished  the  state  with  the  name  of  his  agent. 
An  insane  person  or  a  child  under  ten  years  cannot  com- 
mit a  crime,  yet  if  such  person  or  child,  at  the  instance  of 
A  and  by  his  advice  and  encouragement,  commits  a  mur- 
der or  any  felony,  then  A  is  guilty. 

Wharton  C,  L.,  Vol.  i,  Sec.  207. 


4° 

Reg.  v.  Tyler,  8  C.  &  P.,  616. 
Bishop  C.  L.,  Vol.  i,  Sec.  651. 

The  absurdity  of  the  common  law  distinction  between 
accessories  who  were  present,  aiding,  etc.,  and  accessories 
who  were  absent,  aiding  and  encouraging,  etc.,  is  further 
manifest  when  the  law  declares  that  an  accessory  to  a 
crime  by  an  insane  person  is  principal.  There  must  always 
be  a  principal,  and  if  the  agent  be  irresponsible  of  course 
the  instigator  can  only  be  principal.  The  logical  infer- 
ence is  that  the  instigator,  encourager  and  abettor,  whether 
present  or  absent,  whether  the  agent  be  known  or  un- 
known, stands  in  law,  as  the  statute  and  decisions  in  this 
state  declare,  as  principal. 

In  Pilgcrv.  Com.,  112  Pa.  St.,  220,  defendant  was  in- 
dicted for  arson.  The  proof  left  it  in  doubt  as  to  whether 
defendant  was  present  or  absent,  but  the  court  say  that  as 
it  appeared  that  he  advised,  encouraged  or  instigated 
some  one  to  commit  the  crime,  he  was  guilty. 

In  Brennan  v.  People,  15  111.,  516,  the  court  say: 

"  The  prisoners  might  well  be  convicted  of  the  homicide, 
if  the  fatal  blow  was  given  by  a  person  not  named  in  the 
indictment,  provided  they  were  present  aiding  or  abetting 
him,  or  if  absent  had  advised  or  encouraged  him  to  do  the 
act." 

In  State  v.  Green,  26  S.  C.,  103-128,  in  South  Carolina, 
where  the  common  law  as  to  accessories  and  principals 
prevails,  under  an  indictment  for  murder  containing  several 
counts,  the  jury  found  defendant  guilty  under  third  count 
as  accessory  to  an  unknown  principal.  The  court  say: 

"  The  count  charges  the  murder  to  have  been  committed 
by  a  person  unknown,  and  that  the  prisoner  zvas  accessor  v 
thereto  before  the  fact.  It  would  be  sufficient  to  answer 
this  by  saying  that  the  conviction  is  upon  a  good  count. 


41 

But  I  am  disposed  to  meet  the  objection  at  once  and  answer 
it.  To  make  this  count  bad,  it  must  be  established  that  a 
murder  cannot  be  committed  bv  a  person  unknown.  Such 
a  position  would  not,  I  presume,  be  assumed  by  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  prisoner,  but  still  without  it,  their  argu- 
ment cannot  be  supported,  for  an  accessory  before  the 
fact  is  he  who  counsels,  commands,  procures  or  incites 
another  to  do  the  act.  A  murder  is  committed,  but  the 
perpetrator  is  unknown.  Is  it  less  a  murder  from  the  fact 
that  you  cannot  say  who  did  it?  Unquestionably  not.  If 
it  can  be  shown  who  counseled,  commanded,  procured  or  in- 
cited that  murder,  is  not  the  person  thus  ascertained  acces- 
sor \  to  the  crime  of  murder?  It  cannot  be  doubted  that 
he'is." 

Hawkins  says,  Sec.  n,  Chap.  29: 

"  I  take  it  to  be  a  settled  rule  that  wherever  a  man 
procures  a  felony  to  be  committed,  and  is  absent  at  the 
time  when  it  is  committed,  and  no  other  person  but  him- 
self can  be  adjudged  a  principal  in  it,  he  shall  be  esteemed 
as  much  a  principal  as  if  he  had  been  present.  For  no 
one  can  be  punished  as  a  felon,  but  either  as  a  principal 
or  as  an.  accessory,  and  therefore  where  the  procurer 
of  a  felony  cannot  be  punished  as  an  accessory,  because 
there  is  no  other  to  whom  he  can  be  an  accessory,  he  must 
be  punished  as  a  principal  or  not  at  all." 

No  constitutional  guaranty,  as  counsel  seem  to  think, 
is  impaired  by  this  reasonable,  sensible  rule.  The  de- 
fendant cannot  be  in  jeopardy  twice  for  the  same  offense. 
Who  is  responsible  for  the  crime,  is  the  only  inquiry,  as 
in  this  case  death  resulted  from  the  act,  and  the  fact  of  the 
death  of  deceased  is  not  in  question.  The  fact  of  the  ex- 
istence of  criminal  agency  in  causing  that  death  is  the 
only  question,  which  may  be  established  by  circumstances 
and  is  the  proper  subject  of  presumption  arising  upon  all 
the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case.  At  present,  de- 
fendants are  properly  in  jeopardy  once. 

Pitts  v.  State,  43  Miss.,  472. 


42 

People  v.  Bennett,  49  N.  Y.,  137. 
State  v.  Crank,  2  Bailey  (S.  C.),  66. 

The  common  law  for  many  years  maintained  that  per- 
sons present  and  aiding,  abetting,  etc.,  the  commission  of 
a  crime,  were  accessories  at  the  fact.  This  was  a  mani- 
fest absurdity  and  misapplication  of  terms,  hence  the 
courts  declared  such  an  accessory  a  principal  in  the  second 
degree  to  distinguish  him  from  the  principal  who  actually 
did  the  act,  a  principal  in  the  first  degree.  This  distinc- 
tion as  a  matter  of  pleading  or  proof  has  finally  been 
abandoned  by  all  the  courts,  and  even  those  where  the 
ridiculous  proposition  is  still  maintained  that  there  is  a 
a  difference  between  the  person  who  commits  the  crime 
and  he  who  caused  him  to  commit  it. 

Bishop  says: 

"  The  distinction  between  accessory  and  principal  rests 
solely  in  authority,  being  without  foundation,  either  in 
natural  reason  or  the  ordinary  doctrine  of  law.  The  gen- 
eral rule  of  law  is,  that  what  one  does  through  another 
agency  is  to  be  regarded  as  done  by  himself." 

Bish.  C.  L.,  Vol.  i,  Sec.  673. 

Therefore  has  this  state  adopted  a  sensible  statute,, 
abandoned  an  absurdity  and  decided  through  its  courts 
that: 

"  It  is  no  more  a  fiction  of  the  law  to  declare  that  he 
gives  the  blow  by  advising  and  encouraging  it  beforehand 
than  it  is  to  affirm  that  he  gives  it  by  advising  and  en- 
couraging it  at  the  time." 

Thus  all  are  principals,  and  the  fact  that  some  other 
principal  is  also  guilty,  but  unknown,  in  no  way  lessens 
the  guilt  of  those  known. 

State  v.  Me Ca hill,  30  N.  W.  R.  (la.),  553. 

Com.  v.  Adams,  127  Mass.,  15. 

i  Whar.  C.  L.,  Sec.  327. 


43 


From  the  foregoing  authorities  it  is  apparent  that  even 
where  the  common  law  doctrine  prevails,  one  who  has 
advised  or  encouraged  the  commission  of  a  crime  may  be 
convicted  as  accessory,  although  the  principal  be  un- 
known, if  the  indictment  charges  the  defendant  with 
being  an  accessory  to  an  unknown  principal. 

In  this  state,  the  d:stinction  between  principal  and  ac- 
cessory having  been  abolished,  all  questions  as  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  indictment  should  be  drawn  are  avoided. 

The  absurdity  of  the  position  contended  for  by  the 
plaintiffs  in  error  is  easily  illustrated:  Suppose  A  informs 
a  crowd  of  men  that  B  is  his  enemy,  and  offers  a  reward 
to  the  man  in  the  crowd  who  will  kill  B.  A  leaves. 
Afterwards  B,  coming  in  view  of  the  crowd,  is  shot  by 
some  one  in  the  crowd.  The  one  perpetrating  the  deed 
cannot  be  identified.  If  the  perpetrator  should  be  in- 
dicted for  murder  he  could  not  be  convicted,  because  a 
common  purpose  could  not  be  shown  to  have  existed 
among  the  crowd,  and  it  could  not  be  shown  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt  that  he  himself  committed  the  offense. 
Would  any  one  contend  that  A  under  such  circumstances 
would  not  be  guilty  of  murder?  And  yet,  if  the  position 
assumed  by  counsel  for  plaintiffs  in  error  be  true,  he  would 
not. 

The  trouble  with  the  argument  of  the  counsel  for 
plaintiffs  in  error  is,  that  they  continually  confound  a 
question  of  law  with  one  of  fact.  The  difficulty  is  not 
one  of  law,  but  one  of  fact.  Because  the  principal  cannot 
be  identified  simply  increases  the  difficulty  of  proving 
that,  whoever  he  was,  he  was  actuated  by  the  advice  of 
the  accessory. 

If  the  evidence,  in  a  case  establishes   clearly   and  con- 


44 

clusively  that  the  act  was  done  pursuant  to  the  advice  of 
the  defendant,  there  is  certainly  no  reason  why  he  should 
escape  simply  because  the  perpetrator  cannot  be  identified. 

No  one  of  the  authorities  cited  by  counsel  in  their  brief 
has  any  application  whatever.  We  admit  that  where  the 
common  law  prevails,  before  an  accessory  can  be  punished, 
the  principal  must  have  been  convicted,  provided  the 
principal  were  not  unknown.  In  some  of  the  states  the 
rule  of  the  common  law  has  been  so  far  modified  as  to 
permit  the  trial  and  conviction  of  the  accessory  before  the 
conviction  of  the  principal.  In  such  states  the  advisor 
must  still  be  indicted  as  accessory,  and  if  the  principal 
be  known  he  must  be  named  in  the  indictment; 
and  in  such  case  the  allegation  of  the  indictment  as  to  the 
guilt  of  the  prisoner  must  be  sustained.  We  know  of  no 
decision  which  holds  that  where  the  principal  is  unknown 
the  accessory  cannot  be  convicted. 

The  case  cited  from  Starkie  on  Evidence,  Rex  v.  Howcll, 
9  C.  &  P.,  437,  was  decided  on  a  question  of  fact  simply. 

The  case  of  "Jones  v.  The  State^  64  Ga.,  697,  is  not  in 
point.  In  that  case  Jones  was  indicted  as  being  acces- 
sory to  the  act  of  Sellers.  Of  course,  that  allegation  in 
the  indictment  had  to  be  proven.  In  Georgia  the  distinc- 
tion between  accessory  and  principal  still  prevails. 

In  the  case  of  State  v.  Richer,  29  Me.,  86,  the  court 
used  this  language: 

"  The  guilt  of  the  principal  is  a  necessary  fact  to  be 
shown  on  the  trial  in  order  to  obtain  the  conviction  of 
the  accessory;  but  the  record  of  a  conviction  is  not  re- 
quired." 

Of  course,  it  is  necessary  to  prove  the  guilt  of  the 
principal,  for  if  no  principal  is  guilty  there  is  no  crime. 


45 

If  the  perpetrator  of  the  act  is  not  responsible  mentally, 
his  accessory  becomes  the  principal,  and  that  at  common 
law.  Moreover,  in  that  case,  Ricker  was  charged  with 
having  hired  and  procured  Staples  to  commit  arson.  Of 
course,  that  •  allegation,  being  made,  must  be  proven. 
That  case  holds  that  their  statute  does  not  abolish  the 
distinction  between  the  principal  and  accessory,  and  that 
is  the  only  question  discussed  in  the  case. 

Neither  is  the  case  of  Ogden  v.  State,  12  Wis.,  532,  in 
point,  for  the  statute  of  Wisconsin  is  identical  with  that 
of  Maine,  discussed  in  the  Ricker  case,  supra,  and  hence 
in  Wisconsin  the  common  law  distinction  still  prevails. 
Moreover,  Ogden  was  indicted  "  as  for  a  substantive 
"felony"  in  having  advised  one  Wright  to  commit  the 
felony,  and  the  court  say,  "  In  order  to  establish  the  guilt 
<'  of  Ogden  it  was  first  incumbent  on  the  prosecutor  to 
"  prove  the  guilt  of  Wright,  as  alleged  in  the  indictment."1 

For  the  same  reasons  State  v.  Crank,  13  S.  C.,  74,  has 
no  bearing  upon  the  question  here,  nor  has 

Holmes  v.  Com.,    25  Penn.  St.,  222. 

In  the  case  of  Hatchett  v.  Comnionivcalth,  75  Va.,  932, 
the  court  say: 

"  '  Our  statute  has  not  gone  far  enough  to  make  an 
accessory  before  the  fact  to  a  felony  liable  to  be  con- 
victed on  an  indictment  against  him  as  principal.'  Upon 
this  view  of  the  statute  the  conclusion  is  obvious  that  an 
accessory  to  a  felonv  cannot  be  prosecuted  for  a  substan- 
tive offense,  but  only  as  an  accessory  to  the  crime  per- 
petrated by  the  principal  felon,  and  in  order  to  his  con- 
viction, although  it  is  not  necessary  now  to  show  that  the 
principal  felon  has  been  convicted,  it  is  necessary  to  show 
that  the  substantive  offense,  to  which  he  is  charged  as 
having  been  accessory,  has  been  committed  by  the  prin- 
cipal felon." 


46 

The  effect  of  the  decision  is  that  under  their  statute 
the  advisor  must  still  be  indicted  as  accessory;  and  as  the 
principal  had  been  named,  his  guilt,  of  course,  must  have 
been  shown. 

Our  statute  has  gone  far  enough  to  make  an  acces- 
sory before  the  fact  liable  to  be  convicted  upon  an  indict- 
ment against  him  as  principal,  and  hence,  by  the  very 
terms  of  the  decision,  its  conclusion  is  not  applicable  here. 

i  Bish.  C.  Li.,  §  671,  does  not  announce  the  doctrine 
stated  by  counsel;  he  is  commenting  on  the  Massachu- 
setts statute;  states  it  was  held  not  to  impair  the  common 
law  distinction  between  principal  and  accessory ;  and  says, 
"  statutes  like  these  do  not  supersede  the  necessity  of 
"  -proving  the  guilt  of  the  principal." 

It  is  true  that  i  Whar.  C.  L.,  Sec.  237,  uses  the  lan- 
guage quoted,  but  the  text  does  not  bear  out  the  interpreta- 
tion -put  upon  it  by  counsel.  No  one  denies  that  'the  guilt 
of  some  principal  must  be  shown  before  an  accessory  can  be 
convicted,  because  if  no  principal  is  guilty  there  is  no 
crime,  -which  is  all  that  Wharton  or  Bishop  assert.  The 
question  in  this  case  is  whether  the  principal  always  and 
under  all  circumstances  must  be  identified,  and  not  whether 
he  must  be  proven  guilty.  Here  there  certainly  was  a  prin- 
cipal, and  here  the  principal  was  proven  guilty ;  the  only 
question  is  the  identity  of  the  principal. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  seems  to  be  this: 
Originally  under  the  common  law  it  was  necessary  to 
aver  and  prove  the  conviction  of  the  principal  before  the 
accessory  could  be  punished  (provided  the  principal  were 
known),  but  it  has  always  been  permissible  to  charge  the 
advisor  with  being  accessory  to  an  unknown  principal, 
hence  the  question  after  all  is  simply  one  of  practice;  and 


47 

where,  as  in  this  state,  the  accessory  is  in  fact  a  principal, 
all  questions  of  practice  are  eliminated,  and  the  only  ques- 
tion in  such  case  is  one  of  fact,  zv>.,  did  the  actual  per- 
petrator do  the  deed  by  the  procurement  of  the  defend- 
ant? Of  course  where  the  actual  perpetrator  is 
unidentified  the  difficulty  of  proving  the  causal  connection 
is  greatly  increased.  Such  connection  of  course  can  be 
proved  just  as  any  other  fact  material  to  a  conviction  can- 
by  circumstances. 

And  where,  as  in  this  case,  such  connection  has  been 
shown  overwhelmingly,  there  is  no  reason,  either  in  sound 
sense  or  in  law,  why  the  conviction  should  not  stand,  even 
though  the  personal  identity  of  the  perpetrator  has  not 
bsen  shown. 

We  cannot  comprehend  what  bearing  the  law  of  corpus 
delicti  has  upon  this  question.  Counsel  for  plaintiffs  in 
error  seem  to  contend  that  by  the  expression  corpus  de- 
licti is  meant  both  the  crime  per  sc  and  the  responsibility 
of  a  defendant  for  it. 

We  had  always  supposed,  and,  notwithstanding  their 
argument,  do  yet,  that  by  the  phrase  corpus  delicti  is 
meant  the  criminal  act  as  an  entity,  having  no  relation 
whatever  to  the  question  of  a  defendant's  responsibility 
for  the  act;  and  that  the  only  practical  application  of  the 
doctrine  of  corpus  delicti  in  the  law  is  this:  that  the  ad- 
mission of  a  prisoner  that  he  has  committed  a  crime  will 
not  sustain  a  conviction  unless  it  is  otherwise  shown  that 
the  crime  (corpus  delicti}  has  in  fact  been  committed. 

For  a  further  discussion  of  this  subject,  we  call  atten- 
tion to  that  portion  of  this  brief  relating  to  the  instruc- 
tions. 


(/;.)  And  even  though  (also}  the  advice  zvas  general  ht 
its  character,  and  was  not  specifically  directed  to  any  par- 
ticular person  to  do  any  particular  act. 

The  evidence  in  this  case  (well  and  carefully  consid- 
ered by  the  jury),  by  a  study  of  the  record,  demonstrates 
that  Spies,  Parsons,  Fielden,  Schwab  and  Engel  have 
been  for  years  the  advisers  of  murder  and  assassination 
to  accomplish  the  end  they  sought,  viz.:  the  "  social  revo- 
lution"; that  they  have  been  specific  in  their  endeavors 
to  educate  the  masses.  They  have  not  only,  in  season 
and  out  of  season,  advised  and  declared  that  the  only  way 
the  end  desired  could  be  reached  was  by  wholesale  mur- 
der, by  wiping  off  the  face  of  the  earth  the  capitalists, 
by  murdering  the  police  and  disposing  of  all  officers  of 
the  law  and  all  rulers,  but  they  marked  out  the  way  to 
that  end.  They  have  taught  the  means  to  that  end. 
They  have,  openly  and  secretly,  by  speeches  and  by  writ- 
ten declarations,  advised  the  arming  of  all  laboring  men. 
They  also  specifically  taught  the  use  of  dynamite,  its 
powers,  its  terrors,  and  the  particular  way  in  which  it 
could  be  manufactured,  as  well  as  the  cheapest  and  most 
serviceable  bombs.  They  have  specifically  (which  is 
clearly  demonstrated  by  the  proof  in  this  case,  as  disclosed 
in  the  record),  given  careful  and  clear  directions  how  to 
use  these  missiles  of  destruction  and  carnage.  Each  of 
the  defendants  last  mentioned  declared  repeatedly  that 
dynamite  was  cheap,  readily  obtained,  easily  used,  and 
also  suggested  how,  if  their  advice  was  followed,  the  per- 
petrator of  any  crime  would  be  safe. 

One  of  the  propositions  of  law  to  be  determined  in 
this  case  is,  broadly  stated:  Can  a  man  continuously  and 
persistently  for  years  advise  generally  the  commission  of 


49 

murder,  and,  while  imparting  that  general  advice,  dis- 
tinctly declare  the  specific  road  and  way  to  the  end, 
designating  also  the  time  of  the  "accomplishment  of  the 
deed  and  the  classes  to  be  destroyed,  and  then  be  held 
guiltless  of  murder,  because  the  advice  and  the  encour- 
agement had  been  followed  by  some  person  whose  iden- 
tity cannot  be  prqven,  although  such  unknown  person 
has  followed  the  advice,  encouragement  and  education 
so  closely  that  the  act  appears  like  that  of  the  teacher 
rather  than  the  disciple? 

The  illustration  given  by  the  learned  judge  who  tried 
this  case,  on  the  motion  for  a  new  trial,  is  of  a  kind  to 
demand  respect,  and  is  unanswerable. 

"  Suppose  that  the  leaders  of  the  radical  temperance 
men  should  for  a  long  period  of  time,  by  speeches  and 
publications,  declare  that  there  was  no  hope  of  stopping 
the  evils  of  the  liquor  traffic  except  by  blowing  up  saloons 
and  killing  saloon-keepers;  that  it  was  useless  to  expect 
any  reform  by  legislation;  that  no  prohibition  laws  or 
high  license  laws,  or  any  other  laws,  would  have  any 
effect  in  their  estimation,  and  that  therefore  they  must 
blow  up  the  saloons  and  kill  the  saloon-keepers,  and 
justify  that  course  of  conduct.  Suppose,  further,  that  in 
addition  to  all  this  teaching  they  had  further  taught  the 
means  by  which  saloons  could  be  blown  up  and  saloon- 
keepers killed,  advising  how  to  manufacture  dynamite, 
the  easiest  modes  of  making  bombs,  how  to  throw  them 
and  declaring  that  their  use  against  the  saloon-keepers  and 
the  saloons  was  the  only  remedy  and  the  only  way  to 
reach  the  end  desired  by  the  radical  temperance  men. 
Then  supposing  these  same  leaders  called  a  meeting  in 
front  of  the  saloon  at  54  West  Lake  street,  Chicago, 
and  spoke  denouncing  the  liquor  traffic  and  denouncing 
the  saloons  and  the  saloon-keeper,  indulging  in  figures  and 
facts  about  the  liquor  traffic,  and  one  would  say,  '  If  you 
are  ready  to  do  anything,  do  it  without  making  any  idle 
threats,'  and  another  speaker  say  '  throttle,'  '  kill,'  '  stab  ' 
the  saloon  business,  '  or  it  will  kill,  throttle  and  stab 


50 

Tyou;'  and  then  while  that  speaking  is  going,  on  some 
unknown  man  out  of  the  crowd,  with  a  bomb  of  the 
manufacture  and  design  of  the  temperance  men,  explodes 
No.  54  West  Lake  street  and  kills  the  occupant  of  the 
house,  can  there  be  any  doubt  that  such  leaders,  so  talk- 
ing, so  encouraging,  so  advising,  would  be  guilty  of 
-murder?  " 

We  must  bear  in  mind  that  our  statute  makes  it  crimi- 
•nal  to  "  advise,  encourage,  aid  or  abet  the  -perpetration  of 
~"  the  crime"  Parsons,. Fielden,  Spies,  Engel  and  Schwab 
repeatedly  advised  murder,  the  use  of  dynamite,  the  de- 
struction of  the  police  and  of  capitalists.  They  prac- 
tically conducted  a  school  in  which  was  taught  the 
use  of  explosives  and  firearms  and  the  manufacture 
of  bombs  and  instruments  of  death  and  destruction.  They 
"  advised  and  encouraged  the  perpetration  of  the  crime  " 
•of  killing  representatives  of  the  law,  defenders  of  the 
law  and  protectors  of  the  peace,  to  bring  about  "  the  so- 
'«'  cial  revolution,"  whereby  the  right  of  private  property 
should  be  abolished.  The  object  was  plain,  the  means 
clearly  defined,  the  encouragement  and  advice  always  the 
same.  The  crime  designated,  the  perpetration  thereof 
•encouraged  and  advised. 

In  the  case  at  bar  the  crime  was  perpetrated  precisely 
•as  advised  and  encouraged.  We  have  seen  heretofore 
that  the  responsibility  of  defendants  herein  depends  upon 
\vhat  encouragement  or  advice  they  gave  the  perpetrator. 
The  illustration  above  might  be  multiplied,  but  is  sufficient 
and  unanswerable. 

As  bearing  directly  upon  this  question  we  invite  special 
attention  to  the  case  of  The  ^ticen  v.  Most,  L.  R.,  7  Q. 
B.  D.,  244.  It  is  a  thoroughly  considered  opinion  of  a 
•court  of  the  highest  respectability,  is  based  upon  reason- 


5i 

ing  which  amounts  to  a  demonstration,  and,  as  we  insist, 
is  conclusive  of  the  question. 

The  statute  (24  &  25  Vict,,C.  100,  Sec.  4)  upon  which 
the  indictment  proceeded,  is  as  follows: 

"  Whosoever  shall  solicit,  encourage,  persuade,  or  en- 
deavor to  persuade,  or  shall  propose  to  any  person  to  mur- 
der u nv  other  person,  whether  he  be  a  subject  of  her  Maj- 
esty or  not,  and  whether  he  be  within  the  Queen's  domin- 
ions or  not,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor." 
Queen's  Bench  Division,  244. 

If  in  this  state  a  man  advises  or  encourages  the  com- 
mission of  a  crime,  he  is  not  guilty  under  the  statute  un- 
less the  crime  is  in  fact  committed.  In  England  he  is 
guilty  the  moment  the  advice  is  given  of  a  substantive 
offense.  Any  act  which  in  England  would  make  a  man 
guilty  under  the  above  cited  provisions  of  their  statute 
(and  which  are  the  provisions  discussed  in  the  opinion) 
would  in  Illinois  make  him  guilty  as  accessory  if  the  crime 
were  in  fact  committed.  And  in  that  respect  the  statutes 
are  identical,  with  this  exception — that  the  language  of 
the  English  statute  is  narrower  (as  respects  this  question) 
than  that  of  Illinois.  Our  statute  provides  that  whoever 
"  advises  or  encourages"  "  the  commission  of  the  crime  " 
shall  be  guilty;  theirs  provides  that  "whosoever"  shall 
"  encourage  "  "  any  person  "  to  "  murder  any  other  per- 
son "  shall  be  guilty. 

And  the  question  in  that  case  was  whether  general  ad- 
vice to  murder  a  class  was  within  the  terms  of  their 
statute.  Certainly  there  can  be  no  question  that  if  gen- 
eral advice  is  within  the  terms  of  the  statute  there  it  is 
within  the  terms  of  the  statute  here. 

Bearing  this  in  mind,  we  call  attention  to  the  facts  and 
the  language  of  the  court. 


52 

The  first  two  counts  charged  the  publication  pf  a  sedi- 
tious libel.  Upon  those  counts  a  separate  verdict  was 
found  against  the  accused,  and  no  question  as  to  them 
was  reserved. 

The  third  count  alleged  that  Johann  Most,  unlawfully, 
knowingly  and  wickedly  did  encourage  certain  persons, 
whose  names  to  the  jurors  were  unknown,  to  murder 
certain  persons,  to  wit,  the  sovereigns  and  rulers  of 
Europe,  not  then  being  within  the  dominions  of  our  lady, 
the  queen,  and  not  being  subjects  of  the  queen,  against 
the  form,  etc. 

The  fifth  count  charged  that  he  encouraged  a  certain 
named  person  to  murder  certain  other  persons,  to  wit, 
the  sovereigns  and  rulers  of  Europe. 

The  seventh  count  was  similar  to  the  third,  except  that 
the  persons  encouraged  were  alleged  to  be  persons 
whose  names  were  to  the  jurors  unknown,  aud  who,  on 
the  day  of  the  publication  of  the  libel,  were  subscribers 
to  a  certain  newspaper  called  the  freiheit. 

The  ninth  count  alleged  that  he  encouraged  certain 
persons,  unknown,  to  murder  a  certain  other  person,  to 
wit,  his  imperial  majesty,  Alexander  III,  Emperor  of  all 
the  Russias,  not  then  being,  etc. 

With  regard  to  the  last  ten   counts,  Lord  COLERIDGE 

stated  a  case,  for  the  opinion  of  the  court,  as  follows: 

#  #  #  #  * 

"  The  last  ten  counts  of  the  indictment  charged  the 
prisoner  with  offending  against  24-25  Viet.,  C.  100,  S.  4.; 
the  subject-matter  of  all  the  counts  was  the  same;  the 
publication,'  which  was  treated  as  a  common-law  libel 
in  the  first  two  counts,  was  treated  as  an  offense  against 
the  statute  in  the  remaining  ten.  It  was  an  article  writ- 
ten in  German,  in  a  newspaper  written  entirely  in  that 
language,  but  published  weekly  in  London,  and  enjoying 


53 

an  average  circulation  of  1,200  copies.  The  prisoner 
was  proved  to  be  the  editor  and  publisher  of  the  paper; 
several  copies  of  the  paper  were  proved  to  have  been 
bought  at  his  house,  and  some  copies  of  a  print  of  the 
article  in  question  were  actually  sold  by  the  prisoner  him- 
self to  one  of  the  witnesses  called  on  behalf  of  the  crown. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  set  out  the  article  at  length,  but  it 
contained,  amongst  others,  the  following  passages: 

"  '  Like  a  thunder  clap  it  penetrated  into  princely  palaces 
where  dwell  those  critne-beladen  abortions  of  every  prof- 
ligacy, who  long  since  have  earned  a  similar  fate  a 
thousand  fold.  *  *  * 

"  '  Nay,  just  in  the  most  recent  period  they  whispered 
with  gratification  in  each  other's  ears  that  all  danger 
was  over,  because  the  most  energetic  of  all  tyrant  haters, 
the  "  Russian  Nihilists,"  had  been  successfully  terminated, 
to  the  last  member. 

"  '  Then  comes  such  a  hit. 

"  '  William,  erewhile  canister  shot  prince  of  Prussia,  the 
new  Protestant  pope  and  soldier,  emperor  of  Germany, 
got  convulsions  in  due  form  from  excitement.  Like  things 
happened  at  other  courts.  *  * 

"  '  At  the  same  time  they  all  know  that  every  success 
has  the  wonderful  power  not  only  of  instilling  respect,  but 
also  of  inciting  to  imitation.  There  they  simply  tremble 
then  from  Constantinople  to  Washington  for  their  long- 
since  forfeited  heads.  *  *  * 

"  '  When  in  many  countries  old  women  only,  and  little 
children  yet  limp  about  the  political  stage,  with  tears  in 
their  eyes,  with  the  most  loathsome  fear  in  their  bosoms 
of  the  castigating  rod  of  the  state  night  watchman,  now, 
when  real  heroes  have  become  so  scarce,  such  a 
Brutus  deed  has  the  same  effect  on  better  natures  as  a  re- 
freshing storm.  *  *  * 

"  '  To  be  sure  it  will  happen  once  again  that  here  and 
there  even  socialists  start  up  who,  without  that  any  one 
asks  them,  assert  that  they  for  their  part  abominate 
regicide,  because  such  an  one  after  all  does  no  good,  and 
because  they  are  combating  not  persons,  but  institutions. 

"  '  This  sophistry  is  so  gross  that  it  may  be  confuted  in 
a  single  sentence.  It  is  clear,  namely,  even  to  a  mere 
political  tyro,  that  state  and  social  institutions  cannot  be 


54 

got  rid  of  until  one  has  overcome  the  persons  who  wish 
to  maintain  the  same.  With  mere  philosophy  you  cannot 
so  much  as  drive  a  sparrow  from  a  cherry  tree  any  more 
than  bees  are  rid  of  their  drones  byr  simple  humming. 

"  '  On  the  other  hand  it  is  altogether  false  that  the  de- 
struction of  a  prince  is  entirely  without  value,  because  a 
substitute  appointed  beforehand  takes  his  place. 

"  '  What  one  might  in  any  case  complain  of  that  is  only 
the  rarity  of  sc-called  tyrannicide.  If  only  a  single 
crowned  wretch  were  disposed  of  every  month,  in  a  short 
time  it  should  afford  no  one  gratification  henceforward 
still  to  play  the  monarch.  *  *  * 

"  '  But,  it  is  said,  "  Will  the  successor  of  the  smashed  one 
do  any  better  than  he  did?  "  We  know  it  not.  But  this 
we  do  know,  that  the  same  can  hardly  be  permitted  to 
reign  long  if  he  only  steps  in  his  father's  footsteps.  *  *  * 

"  '  Meanwhile,  be  this  as  it  may,  the  throw  was  good 
and  we  hope  that  it  was  not  the  last. 

"  '  May  the  bold  deed,  which,  we  repeat  it,  has  our  full 
sympathy,  inspire  revolutionists  far  and  wide  with  fresh 
courage.' 

"The  4th  section  of  the  24  and  25  Viet.,  C.  100,  is  as 
follows: 

"  '  All  persons  who  shall  conspire,  confederate  and  agree 
to  murder  any  person,  whether  he  be  a  subject  of  her 
majesty  or  not,  and  whether  he  be  within  the  queen's 
dominions  or  not,  and  whoever  shall  solicit,  encourage, 
persuade,  or  endeavor  to  persuade,  or  shall  propose  to  any 
person  to  murder  any  other  person,  whether  he  be  a  sub- 
ject of  her  majesty  or  not,  and  whether  he  be  within  the 
queen's  dominions  or  not,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misde- 
meanor, and  being  convicted  thereof  shall  be  liable,  at  the 
discretion  of  the  court,  to  be  kept  in  penal  servitude  for 
any  term  not  more  than  ten  and  not  less  than  three  years, 
or  to  be  imprisoned  for  any  term  not  exceeding  two 
years,  with  or  without  hard  labor.'  The  ten  counts 
framed  upon  this  section  all  charged  the  prisoner  with 
having'  encouraged,'  or  'endeavored  to  persuade  '  per- 
sons to  '  murder  other  persons,'  some  named  and  others 
not  named,  who  were  in  all  cases  not  subjects  of  her  maj- 
esty, nor  within  the  queen's  dominions. 

"  The   evidence   in   support  of  these   counts   was    the 


55 

same  as  that  in  support  of  the  first  and  second  counts;  and 
the  only  encouragement  and  endeavor  to  persuade  proved 
was  the  publication  of  the  libel. 

« I  directed  the  jury  that  it  they  thought  by  the  publi- 
cation of  the  article  the  defendant  did  intend  to  and  did 
encourage  or  endeavor  to  persuade  any  person  to  murder 
any  other  person,  whether  a  subject  of  her  majesty  or 
not,  and  whether  within  the  queen's  dominions  or  not. 
.and  that  such  encouragement  and  endeavoring  to  per- 
suade was  the  natural  and  reasonable  effect  of  the  article, 
they  should  find  the  prisoner  guilty  upon  the  last  ten 
counts,  or  such  of  them  as  they  thought  the  evidence  sup- 
ported. The  jury  convicted  the  prisoner  upon  all  the  ten 
counts,  and  there  was  abundant  evidence  to  justify  them 
if  my  direction  was  correct. 

"Entertaining,  however,  some  doubt  as  to  the  correct- 
ness of  my  direction,  I  deferred  sentencing  the  prisoner, 
and  I  have  now  to  request  the  opinion  of  the  Court  of 
Criminal  Appeal  whether  such  direction  was  correct  in 
point  of  law  or  not.  If  the  court  of  appeal  thinks  the 
direction  correct,  the  conviction  on  those  ten  counts  is  to 
be  affirmed;  if  otherwise,-  the  conviction  on  those  ten 
counts  is  to  be  quashed." 

It  was  contended  by  Sullivan,  counsel  for  the  prisoner,, 
that  there  was  no  evidence  of  any  personal  communica- 
tion between  the  prisoner  and  the  persons  he  is  alleged 
to  have  encouraged  to  murder  the  sovereigns  and  rulers 
of  Europe;  that  the  statute  contemplated  some  personal 
communication  between  the  parties,  something  more  than 
the  mere  publication  of  seditious  and  scandalous  libel; 
that  in  the  case  there  was  nothing  in  the  nature  of  a  per- 
sonal proposal  to  any  defined  person,  no  effect  produced 
or  attempted  upon  the  mind  of  any  defined  person,  and 
that  for  that  reason  there  was  no  evidence  for  the  jury  of 
an  offense  within  the  law. 

Lord  COLERIDGE  said: 

"We  have  to  deal   here  with  a  publication  proved   by 


56 

the  evidence  at  the  trial  to  have  been  written  by  the  de- 
fendant, to  have  been  printed  by  the  defendant,  "that  is,  he 
ordered  and  paid  for  the  printing  of  it,  sold  by  the  de- 
fendant, called  by  the  defendant  his  article,  and  intended, 
as  the  jury  have  found,  and  most  reasonably  found,  to  be 
read  by  the  twelve  hundred  or  more  persons  who  were 
the  subscribers  to,  or  the  purchasers  of,  the  Freiheit 
newspaper;  and,  further,  one  which  the  jury  have  found, 
and  I  am  of  opinion  have  quite  rightly  found,  to  be  nat- 
urally and  reasonably  intended  to  incite  and  encourage, 
or  to  endeavor  to  persuade  persons  who  should  read  that 
article  to  the  murder  either  of  the  Emperor  Alexander,  or 
the  Emperor  William,  or,  in  the  alternative,  the  crowned 
and  uncrowned  heads  of  states,  as  it  is  expressed  in  one 
part  of  the  article,  from  Constantinople  to  Washington. 
The  question,  therefore,  simply  is  on  those  facts  which 
are  undisputed  and  with  regard  to  which  the  jury  have 
pronounced  their  opinion — do  those  facts  bring  it  within 
these  words?  I  am  of  opinion  they  clearly  do.  An 
endeavor  to  persuade  or  an  encouragement  is  none  the 
less  an  endeavor  to  persuade  or  an  encouragement, 
because  the  person  who  so  encourages  or  endeavors 
to  persuade  does  not  in  the  particular  act  of  encour- 
agement or  persuasion  personally  address  the  num- 
ber of  people,  the  one  or  more  persons  whom  the 
men  address  which  contains  the  encouragement  or 
the  endeavor  to  persuade  reaches.  The  argument  has 
been  well  put,  that  an  orator  who  makes  a  speech  to  two 
thousand  people  does  not  address  it  to  any  one  individual 
amongst  these  two  thousand;  it  is  addressed  to  the  num- 
ber. It  is  endeavoring  to  persuade  the  whole  number,  or 
large  portions  of  that  number,  and  if  a  particular  individ- 
ual amongst  that  number  addressed  by  the  orator  is  per- 
suaded, or  listens  to  it  and  is  encouraged,  it  is  plain  that 
(the  words  of  this  statute  are  complied  with;  because, 
according  to  well  known  principles  of  law,  the  person  who 
addresses  those  words  to  a  number  of  persons  must  be 
taken  to  address  them  to  the  persons  who,  he  knows, 
will  understand  them  in  a  particular  way,  do  understand 
them  in  a  particular  way,  and  do  act  upon  them.  For 
that  purpose,  the  case  which  was  suggested  by  my 
brother  Williams,  and  was  mentioned  bv  me  in  the 


57 

course  of  this  argument,  the  case  of  Gerhard  v.  JZutc* 
(2  E.  &  B.,  476,  and  cases  cited)  is  an  authority. 
There  are  authorities  to  be  found  elsewhere  to  the 
same  effect,-  that  a  circular  addressed  to  the  public 
containing  false  statements,  reaching  one  of  the  public, 
not  as  an  individual  picked  out,  but  as  one  of  the  public, 
who  is  influenced  by  the  statement  in  that  circular  to  his 
disadvantage,  and  who  is  injured  by  them,  may  afford 
good  ground  for  a  personal  action  for  damages  occasioned 
by  the  statements  in  that  circular  who  has  issued  it  to  the 
public.  The  reason  being  that  the  recipient  of  the  circu- 
lar is  one  amongst  the  number  of  persons  to  whom  it  was 
issued,  and  he  has  been  injured  by  the  statements  contained 
in  it.  (Scott  v.  Dixon,  29  L-.  J.,  and  cases  cited.)  It 
seems  to  me  that  this  is  not  the  less  an  endeavor  to 
persuade,  or  an  encouragement  to  murder,  either  named 
individuals  or  unnamed  individuals,  because  it  is  under  an- 
other aspect  of  the  law  a  seditious  and  scandalous  libel. 
On  the  whole,  1  am  clearly  of  opinion,  on  the  words  of  the 
statute,  and  upon  the  authorities  which  have  been  cited, 
that  the  direction  given  at  the  trial  is  correct,  and  the 
conviction  right  and  proper  to  be  affirmed. " 

GROVE,  J.  "I  am  of  the  same  opinion.  The  words  of 
the  act,  so  far  as  they  are  material  to  this  case,  "are: 
*  Whosoever  shall  solicit,  encourage,  persuade,  or  endeavor 
to  persuade,  or  shall  propose  to  any  person  to  murder  any 
other  person,  whether  he  be  a  subject  of  her  majesty  or 
not,  and  whether  he  be  within  the  queen's  dominions  or 
not,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,'  etc.  I  think  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  those  words  taken  alone,  for  rea- 
sons which  I  will  presently  give,  apply,  at  all  events  per- 
sonally, to  more  than  one  particular  person.  I  do  not 
think  it  would  be  argued  that  if  a  person,  instead  of  en- 
couraging to  persuade  one  person,  endeavored  to  persuade 
two  persons  or  three  persons,  that  would  not  be  within 
the  act,  because  in  endeavoring  to  persuade  two  or  three 
persons,  he  endeavors  to  persuade  each  of  those  two  or 
three  persons.  Then,  to  go  a  step  further,  suppose  he 
addresses  eight  or  ten  persons,  and  says:  Now,  I  recom- 
mend any  one  of  you  who  has  the  courage  to  do  it  to 
murder  so  and  so,  and  you  will  gain  so  and  so  by  it,  or 
uses  other  words,  either  by  way  of  argument  or  by  way 


58 

of  promise,  to  induce  some  one  or  more  of  those  persons 
to  murder  another;  surely  that  would  be  encouraging  a 
person  or  persons — that  is,  each  and  every  one  of  those 
persons — to  murder.  Then,  supposing  it  is  not  done  by 
word  of  mouth,  supposing  a  person  writes  a  letter  to  an 
individual  person,  can  it  be  said  that  that  is  not  wholly 
within  the  words  of  this  section?  If  appears  to  me  it  is 
absolutely  within  them.  It  is  a  direct  encouragement  to 
a  person  to  murder.  Then  if  he  goes  further,  and,  in- 
stead of  writing  one  letter,  he  writes  ten  or  twenty  letters, 
and  distributes  them  to  persons  whom  he  thinks  they  may 
have  an  effect  upon,  or  the  first  twenty  who  come,  does 
not  he  then  encourage  each  of  those  persons  to  commit  a 
murder?  Then,  to  go  a  step  further,  if  he  prints  a  circular 
of  the  same  character  as  a  letter,  and  hands  that  to  twenty 
or  more  than  twenty  persons,  is  not  that  an  encour- 
agement to  every  one  of  those  twenty  persons  to  commit 
a  murder?  Does  he  lessen  the  offense  by  increasing  the 
number  of  persons  to  whom  he  publishes  or  transmits  this 
encouragement?  Then,  can  it  be  said  that  the  printing 
of  a  paper  and  circulating  it  to  a  definite  body  of  sub- 
scribers, as  was  done  here,  or  to  all  the  world  does?  It  is 
beyond  my  comprehension  to  see  that  that  can  alter  the 
fact  at  all.  It  seems  to  me  first,  it  is  clearly  within  the 
words  of  the  statute,  and,  secondly,  that  so  far  from  ex- 
tenuating— I  do  not  mean  in  the  sense  of  punishment,  but 
diluting  the  offense — it  increases  it,  because  he  not  only 
endeavors  to  persuade  a  person  to  commit  the  offense,  but 
a  considerable  number  of  different  persons,  each  one  of 
whom  is  'a  person.'  It  appears  to  rne,  therefore,  that  it 
is  literally  and  clearly  within  the  words  of  the  statute, 
which  are  '  persuade  any  person,'  and  it  does  not  the  less 
do  that  because  it  persuades,  or  endeavors  to  persuade,  or 
encourages  separately,  a  considerable  number  of  persons." 

DENMAN,J.:  "  The  sole  question  in  this  case  is  whether 
there  was,  upon  the  facts  which  are  here  stated,  evidence, 
to  go  the  jury  that  the  defendant  was  brought  within  S. 
4  of  24  and  25  Viet. ,  C.  100.  And  upon  this  point  it  was 
said  for  the  defendant  that  it  was  made  out  that  he  had 
encouraged  or  endeavored  to  persuade  any  person  to 
murder  any  other  person.  With  regard  to  murdering 
any  other  person,  that  point  was  not  reserved.  I  think 


59 

there  was  nothing  to  reserve  about  it,  because  I  should 
draw  the  same  conclusion  the  jury  did  from  the  document 
itself,  that  it  did  contain  an  encouragment  or  an  endeavor 
to  persuade  to  murder  the  particular  persons  whose 
names  are  mentioned  in  it.  But  it  is  out  of  the  case,  and 
the  only  question  is  whether  the  words  '  any  person'  are 
are  met  by  the  evidence  in  this  case.  Now,  I  must  own 
that  if  ..that  question  had  been  for  the  first  time  raised 
before  me,  as  it  was  before  my  lord  upon  the  trial,  my 
impression  is  strong  that,  looking  at  the  importance  of 
the  case,  and  looking  at  the  fact  of  the  absence  of  any 
authority  upon  it  in  our  courts,  I  should,  as  my  lord 
did,  have  thought  it  a  proper  case  to  reserve  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Court  of  Criminal  Appeal,  and  I  am  glad 
he  did  so;  but  the  question  having  been  reserved,  we 
have  to  consider  whether  there  was  here  evidence  to  meet 
that  part  of  the  case.  I  think  there  was.  The  conten- 
tion was  that  the  statute  did  not  intend  to  meet  such  a 
case;  that  the  statute  did  not  intend  to  meet  a  case  of. 
libel  of  this  character,  circulated,  as  libels  are  circulated, 
simply  by  the  publication  of  a  paper,  and  sending  it  to  the 
subscribers,  or  allowing  it  to  be  circulated  amongst  the 
population.  I  agree  with  my  lord  entirely,  and  I  am  glad 
that  he  now  feels  that  there  is  no  doubt  about  it,  and  that 
though  this  may  be  a  mere  publication  of  a  libel,  still  if  it 
is  the  publication  of  a  libel  of  this  character,  and  the  libel 
does  in  itself  amount  to  an  endeavor  to  persuade  all  per- 
sons to  whom  it  is  sent  to  commit  murder,  nevertheless  it 
is  doing  an  act  intended  to  be  legislated  against 
by  this  clause,  making  it  a  misdemeanor  of  another  char- 
acter— a  misdemeanor  punishable  by  a  more  severe  pun- 
ishment than  the  ordinary  circulation  of  a  lib^l  of  that 
character  would  be.  The  statute  was  passed  for  the  very 
purpose,  I  think,  of  rendering  it  a  more  Serious  offense 
than  the  common  law  rendered  it  to  do  such  an  act  as 
this.  Now  I  need  say  no  more  than  that  I  entirely  agree 
with  my  lord  and  brother  Grove  on  that  point,  but  I  do 
wish  to  add  this.  The  doubt  which  I  should  have  felt 
probably,  if  it  had  come  before  me,  was  a  doubt  in  accord- 
ance with  Mr.  Sullivan's  argument  whether  the  words 
'  any  person '  might  not  mean  some  definite  person.  I 
should,  however,  have  thought  that  if  it  had  been  made 


6o 

out  that  the  libel  had  been  circulated  to  a  certain  set  of 
persons  whose  identity  was  easily  ascertained^  jexcept  only 
that  their  names  were  unknown,  the  clause  would  have 
been  satisfied  even  if  it  meant  some  definite  person.  But 
I  do  not  think  that  is  the  meaning.  I  think  the  circula- 
tion to  the  world,  to  multitudes  of  persons  wholly  unde- 
fined, and  to  whom  it  would  come,  would  be  sufficient, 
but  what  I  wish  to  add  is  this,  that  even  if  the  other  con- 
struction were  the  true  one,  I  should  have  been  prepared 
to  support  the  conviction  on  this  ground — that  many  of 
these  persons  were,  in  that  sense,  definite  persons.  They 
wrere  known  subscribers  in  large  numbers  to  this  news- 
paper, and  the  man  who  edited  the  newspaper,  the  man 
who  wrote  the  article,  the  man  who  sold  the  newspaper 
and  caused  it  to  be  distributed,  did  know  that  that  news- 
paper would,  in  the  ordinary  course,  come  to  its  regular 
subscribers  at  all  events,  whether  it  went  to  a  larger  num- 
ber of  persons,  or  whether  it. did  not.  Therefore,  suppos- 
ing it  were  necessary  that  the  persons  unknown  should 
be  in  this  case  definite  persons,  ascertainable  persons,  per- 
sons who  might  be  ascertained  by  inquiry,  although  un- 
known to  the  jurors  at  the  time  of  their  finding,  I  should 
hnve  thought  that  in  that  sense  the  indictment  was  sup- 
ported by  the  evidence." 

HUDDLESTOX,  B.:  "  The  question  for  consideration, 
submitted  to  us  by  the  lord  chief  justice,  is  whether  his 
direction  was  correct  in  point  of  law,  and  that  direction  is 
this:  He  told  the  jury  that  if  they  thought  that  by  the 
publication  of  the  article  the  defendent  did  intend  to,  and 
did,  encourage  or  endeavor  to  persuade  any  person  to 
murder  any  other  person,  whether  the  subject  of  her 
majesty  or  not,  and  whether  within  the  queen's  domin- 
ions or  not,  and  that  such  encouragement  and  endeavor 
to  persuade  was  the  natural  and  reasonable  effect  of -the 
article,  they  should  find  the  prisoner  guilty.  Now,  I  do 
not  entertain  the  slightest  doubt  that  that  was  really  the 
only  question  which  could  be  left  to  the  jury,  and  that 
the  evidence  was  ample  to  warrant  their  finding.  The 
charge  is  founded  directly  on  the  words  of  the  statute, 
and  if  you  come  to  look  at  the  words  of  the  statute,  the 
distinction  which  Mr.  Sullivan  has  attempted  to  draw 
with  reference  to  conspiracy  really  does  not  arise  ;  be- 


6i 

cause  the  section  of  the  statute  contemplates  two  classes 
of  cases,  one  where  there  is  a  conspiracy,  and  another 
where  there  is  individual  action.  As  regards  the  second 
class,  it  is  remarkable  to  see  the  words  which  the  legis- 
lature have  used  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  the  act 
which  makes  the  party  liable.  The  largest  words  possible 
have  been  used — '  solicit ' — that  is  defined  to  be,  to  impor- 
tune, entreat,  to  implore,  to  ask,  to  attempt,  to  try  to  obtain; 
'  encourage,'  which  is  to  intimate,  to  incite  to  anything,  to 
give  courage  to,  to  inspirit,  to  embolden,  to  raise  confi- 
dence, to  make  confident;  'persuade,'  which  is  to  bring 
to  any  particular  opinion,  to  influence  bv  argument  or  ex- 
postulation, lo  inculcate  by  argument;  'endeavor,'  and 
then,  as  if  there  might  be  some  class  of  cases  that  would 
not  come  within  those  words,  the  remarkable  words  are 
used,  '  or  shall  propose  to,'  that  is  to  say,  make  merely 
a  bare  proposition,  an  offer  for  consideration.  It  is  to  be 
a  misdemeanor  of  a  highly  criminal  character  to  encourage, 
to  persuade  or  even  to  propose  to  any  person  to  kill  any 
other  person,  whether  one  of  her  majesty's  subjects  or 
not.  Mr.  Sullivan  has  argued  that  you  must  have  an  im- 
mediate connection  with  the  proposer,  the  solicitor  or  the 
encourager,  and  the  person  who  is  solicited,  encouraged, 
persuaded,  or  proposed  to,  and  that  it  is  not  sufficient  to 
solicit  generally,  that  you  must  solicit  some  person  in  par- 
ticular. What  was  the  intention  of  this  act?  The  inten- 
tion was  to  declare  the  law  and  to  protect  people  abroad 
from  the  attempts  of  regicides  of  this  description,  and  there- 
fore the  largest  possible  words  are  used.  It  shall  be 
criminal — not  to  persuade  an  individual,  but  to  persuade 
'  any  person,'  that  is  to  say  the  public — crowds  who  may 
hear  it  if  it  is  an  oration,  or  who  may  read  it  if  in 
a  newspaper.  I  have  been  furnished  from  the  bar 
with  a  case  which  is  certainly  not  inapplicable  to  the 
present  one.  There  was  a  question  of  disputed 
marriage,  and  the  father,  who  was  interested  in  the 
marriage,  put  an  advertisement  in  the  newspapers 
offering  a  reward  of  a  hundred  pounds  if  any  person 
could  come  and  give  evidence  of  that  marriage.  It  was 
suggested  that  the  object  was  to  render  impure  the 
sources  of  justice,  to  bribe  some  people  to  give  improper 
evidence,  and  the  party  was  brought  up  for  contempt 


62 

before  Lord  Chancellor  Parker,  but  it  was  argued  on  his 
behalf  that  nothing  had  been  done  in  consequence  of  the 
advertisement.  No  witnesses  had  come.  But  the  lord 
chancellor  said:  '*  It  does  not  appear  that  some  person 
would  not  come  in  if  this  were  not  discouraged;  how- 
ever, the  person  moved  against  has  done  his  part,  and  if 
not  successful,  is  still  not  the  less  criminal.'  The  counsel 
objects  that  it  is  not  to  any  particular  person.  'It  is 
equally  criminal  when  the  offer  is  to  any,  for  to  any  is  to 
every  particular  person.  The  advertisement  will  come 
to  all  persons,  to  rogues  as  well  as  honest  men,  and  it  is  a 
strange  way  of  arguing  to  say  that  offering  a  reward  to 
one  witness  is  criminal,  but  that  offering  a  reward  to 
more  than  one  is  not  so.  Surely  it  is  more  criminal,  as 
it  may  corrupt  more.' 

"  If  you  hold  an  offer  out  to  the  public — an  invitation 
to  come  in  and  give  perjured  evidence — that  is  as  much  a 
criminal  act  as  to  request  an  individual  to  do  so.  Just  so 
it  is  here  criminal  to  publish  to  the  whole  world,  or  de- 
clare to  the  whole  world,  that  the  individual  rejoices  in 
regicide,  and  recommends  others  to  follow  his]  example, 
and  trusts  that  the  time  is  not  long  absent  when  once  a 
months  kings  may  fall.  This  article  was  an  encourage- 
ment to  the  public — a  solicitation  and  encouragement  in 
any  person  who  chooses  to  adopt  it,  and  comes  within  the 
meaning  of  the  act.  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  with  the 
conviction,  and  think  it  was  right." 

WATKIN  WILLIAMS,  J.:  "lam  of  the  same  opinion. 
The  jury  have  found  the  defendant  guilty,  and  upon  the 
narrow  question  of  law  which  has  been  reserved  for  the 
consideration  of  this  court,  it  seems  to  me  the  conviction 
ought  not  to  be  interfered  with. 

"  Conviction  affirmed" 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  portions  of  the  evidence  set  out 
in  the  report  that  the  articles  published  in  Most's  Frcihcit 
in  London,  and  upon  which  the  prosecution  was  based, 
are  of  a  character  identical  with  scores  and  scores  of  arti- 
cles published  by  the  plaintiffs  in  error  in  Chicago  in  the 
Arbeiter  Zeitung  and  the  Anarchistic  German  and  in  the 


63 

Alarm  in  English,  articles  which  appear  in  the  record, 
except  that  the  articles  here  are  more  specific,  more 
direct  and  more  incendiary.  In  addition  to  this  printed 
advice  and  encouragement  to  murder,  the  record  is  full  of 
speeches  publicly  made  by  the  defendants  containing  not 
merely  general  but  specific  and  direct  advice  to  murder. 
Certainly  if  the  articles  of  Most  set  out  in  the  report  arc- 
within  the  terms  of  the  English  statute,  the  articles  and 
speeches  here  are  advice  and  encouragement  within  the 
terms  of  our  statute.  Whether  the  perpetrator  of  the  act 
was  encouraged  by  those  articles  and  speeches  is  a  ques- 
tion of  fact,  not  of  law. 

Pertinent  to  this  branch  of  the  case  some  matters  are 
suggested  in  the  decision  in  the  Green  case.  (26  S.  C., 
128.)  The  defendant,  Green,  had  endeavored  to  accom- 
plish the  death  of  her  husband  through  various  instru- 
mentalities, solicitation  of  different  individuals  and  the 
means  different  in  each  case.  The  deceased  was  finally 
shot  by  some  unknown  person,  without  proof  that  any- 
particular  unknown  person  was  solicited  to  commit  the 
crime.  The  chief  end  desired  by  the  defendant  was  the 
death  of  her  husband.  The  solicitation,  or  advice,  or  en- 
couragement, by  herself  to  third  parties,  known  and  un- 
known, was  general  as  to  the  means  to  be  employed,  but 
the  end  desired  was  death.  The  reasoning  in  the  Green  case 
submits  itself  to  the  approval  of  any  individual  reading  it, 
and  is  parallel  to  the  case  at  bar. 

In  the  case  of  Reg.  v.  Sharpe,  3  Cox  C.  C.,  288,  the 
defendant  made  an  inflammatory  speech  at  3  r.  M.,  and 
said  he  would  make  another  and  did  make  another  at  5 
I-.  M.  He  left  the  second  meeting,  whereupon  the  crowd 
dispersed  in  different  directions.  Some  of  the  crowd  soon 


64 

after  went  to  a  church  which  contained  policemen,  upon 
which  they  made  an  attack.  Chief  Justice  '"  WILDE,  in 
charging  the  jury,  said: 

';  If  persons  are  assembled  together  to  the  number  of 
three  or  more,  and  speeches  are  made  to  those  persons  to 
excite  and  inflame  them,  with  a  view  to  incite  them  to 
acts  of  violence,  and  if  that  same  meeting  is  so  connected 
in  point  of  circumstances  with  a  subsequent  riot  that  you 
cannot  reasonably  sever  the  latter  from  the  incitement 
that  was  used,  it  appears  to  me  that  those  who  incited 
are  guilty  of  the  riot,  although  they  are  not  actually  pres- 
ent when  it  occurs.  /  think  it  is  not  the  hand  that  strikes 
the  blow,  or  that  throws  the  stone  (bomb},  that  is  alone 
guilty  under  such  circumstances;  but  that  he  who  inflames 
•people's  minds  and  induces  them  by  violent  means  to  accom- 
plish an  illegal  object  is  himself  a  rioter,  though  he  take 
no  part  in  the  riot.  It  will  be  a  question  for  the  jury 
whether  the  riot  that  took  place  was  so  connected  with 
the  inflammatory  language  used  by  the  defendant  that 
they  cannot  reasonably  be  separated  by  time  or  other  cir- 
cumstances." 

i  Bishop,  C.  L.,  Sec.  641: 

"  The  true  view  is  doubtless  as  follows:  One  is  responsible 
for  what  wrong  flows  directly  from  his  corruptfintentions; 
but  not,  though  intending  wrong, 'for  thea  product  of 
another's  independent  act.  If  he  set  in  motion  the  physi- 
cal power  of  another,  he  is  liable  for  its  result.  If  he 
contemplated  the  result,  he  is  answerable  though  it  is  pro- 
duced in  a  manner  he  did  not  contemplate.  If  he  did  not 
contemplate  it  in  kind,  yet  if  it  was  the  ordinary  effect  of 
the  cause,  he  is  responsible.  If  he  awoke  into  action  an 
indiscriminate  power,  he  is  responsible.  If  he  gave  direc- 
tions vaguely  and  incautiously,  and  the  person  receiving 
them  acted  according  to  what  he  might  have  foreseen  would 
be  the  understanding,  he  is  responsible" 

Foster's  Reports  (page  370,  Sec.  3)  says: 

"  The  events,  though  possibly  falling  out  beyond  his 
original  intentions,  were  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things 


65 

the  probable  consequences  of  what  B  did  under  the  influ- 
ence and  at  the  instigation  of  A.  And  therefore,  in  the 
justice  of  the  law  he  is  answerable  for  them." 

These  citations  declare  that  the  advice  and  encourage- 
ment may  be  general,  and  whatever  naturally  and  prob- 
ably follows  from  the  advice  and  encouragement  deter- 
mines the  responsibility  of  the  adviser. 

It  has  always  been  held,  as  in  the  Sharpe  case,  supra, 
that  an  inflammatory  speech  which  incites  to  riot  makes 
the  speaker  guilty.  Scores  of  decisions  sustain  that 
position;  none  can  be  found  denying  it. 

The  speaker  having  inflamed  the  minds  of  his  audience 
to  such  a  point  that  riot  follows,  he  is  legally  as  well  as 
morally  responsible  for  the  act  of  each  one  of  the  rioters. 
If  murder  follows,  he  is  guilty  of  murder.  His  advice 
was  to  the  crowd  generally,  but  the  law  declares  that  it 
was  made  to  each  one  of  the  crowd  specifically. 

What  difference  is  there  in  -principle  "whether  the  advice 
which  leads  to  riot  or  murder  is  given  an  hour,  a  month  or 
a  year  before  the  riot  or  murder  ? 

The  greater  the  time  between  the  advice  and  the  crime 
the  greater  the  difficulty  of  proving  the  connection,  but 
the  difficulty  is  one  of  fact,  not  of  law. 

Counsel  rely  strongly  upon  two  citations  from  Whar- 
ton.  One,  i  Whar.  C.  L.,  sec.  226,  is  found  in  a  note. 
The  statement  there  made  is  the  opinion  of  the  writer, 
and  is  not  based  upon  any  authority.  Any  one  who  has 
occasion  to  use  the  later  edition  of  Wharton's  criminal 
works  knows  from  experience  that  the  notes  are  unrelia- 
ble; at  any  rate,  the  most  that  can  be  said  for  it  is,  that  it 
is  merely  Mr.  Wharton's  opinion  and  is  valuable  only  in 


66 

proportion  as  the  argument  is  sound.  It  is  apparent, 
however,  that  the  illustrations  given  by  him  are  not  par- 
allel with  the  advice  and  encouragement  disclosed  by  the 
record  here. 

The  other  citation  (Sec.  179)  discusses  the  question  as 
to  what  solicitation  is  indictable  as  a  substantive  offense. 

We  invite  a  comparison  of  the  doctrine  of  this  section 
with  that  laid  down  in  i  Bish.  C.  L.,  Sec.  .768. 

Moreover,  under  the  law  in  this  state,  as  declared  in 
Cox  v.  People,  82  111.,  192,  a  man  may  be  guilty  as  an 
accessory  to  a  crime  which  has  been  committed  who  could 
not  be  punished  for  soliciting  if  the  crime  had  not  been 
committed.  For  instance,  A  may  solicit  B  to  steal  the 
property  of  C ;  if  B  does  steal  it,  A  is  guilty  of  larceny ; 
if  B  does  not  steal  it,  A  cannot  be  punished  for  the  solici- 
tation. 

For  further  discussion  of  this  question  we  invite  the 
attention  of  the  court  to  that  portion  of  this  brief  relative 
to  the  instructions. 


V. 

THE  INSTRUCTIONS. 

Counsel  for  plaintiffs  in  error  complain  of  a  number  of 
the  instructions  given  at  the  instance  of  the  prosecution, 
particularly  of  the  following: 

INSTRUCTION  NUMBER  4. 

"  The  court  instructs  the  jury,  as  a  matter  of  law,  that 
if  they  believe  from  the  evidence  in  this  case,  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  that  the  defendants,  or  any  of  them,  con- 
spired and  agreed  together,  or  with  others,  to  overthrow 
the  law  by  force,  or  to  unlawfully  resist  the  officers  of  the 
law,  and  if  they  further  believe  from  the  evidence, 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  in  pursuance  of  such 
conspiracy,  and  in  furtherance  of  the  common  objects,  a 
bomb  was  thrown  by  a  member  of  such  conspiracy  at  the 
time,  and  that  Mathias  J.  Began  was  killed,  then  such  of 
the  defendants  that  the  jury  believe  from  the  evidence, 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  to  have  been  parties  to  such 
conspiracy,  are  guilty  of  murder,  whether  present  at  the 
killing  or  not,  and  whether  the  identity  of  the  person 
throwing  the  bomb  be  established  or  not." 

Counsel  complain  of  this  instruction,  because  it  told  the 
jury  in  substance,  that  if  they  were  satisfied  from  the  evi- 
dence, beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  a  conspiracy  to 
commit  crime  was  formed,  that  defendants  were  members 
of  such  conspiracy,  and  that  in  pursuance  of  the  plans 
of  such  conspiracy,  a  bomb  was  thrown  by  one  of  the 
conspirators,  whereby  Mathias  J.  Degan  was  killed,  then 
all  of  the  defendants  that  the  jury  believe  from  the  evi- 
dence, beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  to  have  been  parties  to 


68 

such  conspiracy,  are  guilty  of  murder,  "  whether  present 
"  at  the  killing  or  not,  and  -whether  the  identity  of  the  per- 
"  son  throwing  the  bomb  be  established  or  not" 

•From  a  perusal  of  the  brief  of  counsel,  page  324  et  set/., 
it  will  be  seen  the  words  in  italics  above  constitute  the 
supposed  objectionable  part  of  this  instruction.  Are  these 
words  objectionable?  The  foundation  of  accessoryship  is 
responsibility;  and  on  this  idea  the  law  imputes  guilt  to  a 
person  absent  from  the  place  of  the  crime  at  the  time  of 
the  commission  of  the  criminal  act,  but  who  had  advised 
and  encouraged  the  perpetration  of  the  crime. 

In  our  statute  accessories  at  the  fact  and  accessories 
before  the  fact  are  designated  by  the  following  words : 
First.  "  An  accessory  is  he  who  stands  by  and  aids, 
abets,  or  assists."  Second,  "  or  who,  not  being  present, 
aiding,  abetting  or  assisting,  hath  advised,  encouraged, 
aided  or  abetted  the  perpetration  of  the  crime."  Acces- 
sories before  the  fact,  therefore,  are  not  present  at  the  com- 
mission of  the  crime.  Then  we  insist  that  the  words, 
"  whether  present  at  the  killing  or  not,"  plainly  state  the 
law,  and  are  therefore  wholly  unobjectionable.  It  remains 
then  to  be  seen  if  the  concluding  words,  "  and  whether  the 
"  identity  of  the  person  throwing  the  bomb  be  established 
"  or  not,"  vitiate  this  instruction. 

"Every  such  accessory,  when  a  crime  is  committed 
within  or  without  this  state,  by  his  aid  or  procurement  in 
this  state,  may  be  indicted  and  convicted  at  the  same  time 
as  the  principal,  or  before  or  after  his  conviction,  and 
whether  the  principal  is  convicted  or  amenable  to  justice 
or  not,  and  punished  as  principal." 

jRer.  Stat.  187/1,  Crini.  Code,  Div.  II,  Sec.  3^ 

If,  as  is  plain  under  the  foregoing  provision  of  the 
statute,  an  accessory  may  be  convicted  in  this  state,  when 


69 

the  principal  is  not  even  amenable  to  our  law,  and  when 
his  crime,  however  atrocious,  may  not  even  be  an  offense 
against  our  law,  it  would  seem  idle  to  contend  that  simply 
because  the  principal  is  unknown  or  because  his  identity 
has  not  been  or  cannot  be  established,  therefore  a  con- 
viction as  accessory  cannot  be  had,  however  clear  the 
proof,  and  that  too,  when  the  criminal  act  is  a  violation 
of  our  own  law. 

But  it  does  not  seem  that  the  objection  taken  to  the 
language  contained  in  the  above  instruction  is  urged  so 
much  on  account  of  the  rule  of  law  which  the  language 
announces,  as  because  the  prosecution  introduced  evidence 
tending  to  show  that  Rudolph  Schnaubelt  threw  the 
bomb,  and  the  language  objected  to  covers  the  case  of  an 
unknown  or  unidentified  principal. 

Commenting  on  this  instruction,  counsel  say: 

"  It  will  appear  from  this  instruction,  as  in  fact  from  all 
instructions  given  for  the  people,  that  the  state  entirely 
abandoned  the  theory  that  Rudolph  Schnaubelt  threw  the 
bomb,  and  that  the  plaintiffs  in  error  were  accessories 
before  the  fact  to  his  crime.  The  instruction  will  be 
searched  in  vain  for  even  the  slightest  allusion  to  Gilmer's 
testimony,  the  only  evidence  in  the  case  by  which  the  identitv 
of  the  bomb-thrower  was  sought  to  be  established,  but  the 
theory  adopted  was,  that  the  bomb  was  thrown  by  an 
unknown,  undescribcd,  unidentified  individual  -person" 

To  all  which,  it  need  only  be  answered  that  the  indict- 
ment charges  that  Schnaubelt  threw  the  bomb,  and  that 
plaintiffs  in  error  were  accessories  to  that  act,  and  it  also 
charges  that  a  person  to  the  jurors  unknown  threw  the 
bomb,  and  that  plaintiffs  in  error  were  accessories  to  that 
act;  the  prosecution  was  entitled  to  and  did  introduce  tes- 
timony to  support  both  counts  of  the  indictment,  or  both 
theories  of  the  case.  The  fact  that  the  prosecution  asked 


no  instruction  referring  to,  or  based  upon,  the  hypothesis 
that  Schnaubelt  threw  the  bomb  is  not  in  theory,  nor  is  it 
treated  in  our  practice  as  an  abandonment  of  that  count 
of  the  indictment.  That  would  be  done  by  a  nolle  as  to 
that  count.  The  evidence  was  before  the  jury  and  it  was 
for  them  to  consider  it,  and  give  to  it  such  weight  as  they 
deemed  it  entitled  to.  The  jury  were  neither  required  nor 
asked  to  find  by  their  verdict  who  actually  threw  the 
bomb,  nor  did  they  so  find;  and  neither  the  trial  court 
nor  this  court  will  inquire  or  can  ascertain  whether  the 
jury  believed  from  the  evidence  that  the  bomb  was  thrown 
by  Schnaubelt  or  by  an  unknown  person. 

In  all  the  counts  of  the  indictment  plaintiffs  in  error  are 
charged  with  aiding,  abetting  or  assisting,  or  having  ad- 
vised, encouraged,  aided  or  abetted  the  perpetration  of 
the  crime.  It  was  the  truth  of  this  charge  which  the  jury 
were  required  to  investigate,  it  was  to  this  alone  that  their 
verdict  must  relate;  this  was  the  issue  they  were  called 
upon  to  try,  and  trying  it,  they  found  defendants  guilty  as 
charged  in  the  indictment;  and  if  the  proof  supports  any 
count  in  the  indictment,  that  verdict  is  good.  The  ten- 
dency of  all  the  evidence  introduced  by  the  defense  as  to 
the  identity  of  the  person  who  threw  the  bomb,  was  that 
it  was  thrown  by  an  unknown  person. 

How  the  plaintiffs  in  error  were  injured  or  prejudiced 
by  the  failure  of  the  prosecution  to  ask  an  instruction 
based  upon  the  theory  that  Schnaubelt  threw  the  bomb, 
we  are  unable  to  see. 

It  is  further  urged  by  counsel  that,  "  with  the  abandon- 
"  ment  of  the  theory  that  Rudolph  Schnaubelt  threw  the 
"  bomb,  the  theory  that  Adolph  Fischer  and  August 
"  Spies  stood  by  and  aided  him  was  given  up."  Whether 
the  theory  that  Schnaubelt  threw  the  bomb  was  aban- 


cloned  or  not  it  can  make  no  possible  difference  as  to  the 
guilt  of  Fischer  and  Spies  under  the  indictment  and  on 
the  evidence  in  this  case.  The  indictment  charges  them, 
as  well  as  all  the  other  defendants,  as  accessories  both  be- 
fore and  at  the  fact,  absent  from,  and  present  at  the  per- 
petration of  the  crime. 

There  is  evidence  in  the  record  tending  to  prove  that 
Fischer  and  Spies  were  present  at  the  Haymarket  meet- 
ing aiding  and  abetting  the  perpetration  of  the  crime;  and 
whether  they  aided  and  abetted  Schnaubelt  or  an  un- 
known person  is  wholly  immaterial  under  this  indictment, 
if  either  was  satisfactorily  proved. 

There  is  also  evidence  tending  to  prove  that  these  two, 
as  well  as  the  other  defendants,  had  advised  and  encour- 
aged the  perpetration  of  the  crime,  not  being  present  at 
the  time  of  its  perpetration;  and  surely,  the  fact  that  ad- 
vice had  been  given  to  and  was  acted  upon  by  a  person 
unknown  to  the  witnesses  for  the  prosecution,  or  whose 
identity  could  not  be  established,  by  no  means  excuses  the 
criminal  act  of  these  accessories,  or  vitiates  this  instruction. 

It  is  also  contended  by  counsel  that  where  a  party  is 
sought  to  be  held  on  the  sole  ground  of  alleged  prior  ad- 
vice, assistance,  abetting  or  encouragement,  no  conviction 
can  be  had  without  legal  proof  showing  a  "  causal  re- 
lationship "  between  such  alleged  accessory  and  the  prin- 
cipal in  the  case,  and  it  is  then  insisted  that  this  "causal 
relationship  "  shall  be  established  by  proof  so  far  identify- 
ing the  principal  actor  as  the  same  person  who  was  at 
another  time  and  place  advised  and  encouraged  to  com- 
mit the  crime  by  the  accused. 

Tf  the  correctness  of  this  proposition  is  conceded,  then 
the  conviction  of  one  sought  to  be  held  as  accessory 
would  in  any  case  be  impossible  where  the  principal  actor 


72 

is  unknown.  If  the  specific  proof  suggested,  namely, 
that  the  principal  actor  is  the  same  person  who  at  some 
other  time  and  place  was  connected  with  the  accused,  then 
the  complete  identity  of  the  principal  act  or  must  in  all 
cases  be  shown,  and  the  "  unknown  person  "  becomes  at 
once  a  known  person.  Suppose  that  in  the  execution  of 
the  declared  intentions  of  a  mob,  a  building  is  burned, 
and  on  the  trial  of  those  indicted  for  the  crime,  no  witness 
swears  that  he  saw  the  hand  which  applied  the  torch;  will 
it  be  contended  that  no  conviction  can  be  had  of  those 
whom  the  evidence  plainly  shows  had  counseled,  advised 
and  encouraged  the  burning,  simply  because  neither  the 
name,  residence,  stature  or  color  of  the  hair  of  the  princi- 
pal actor  is  known  or  disclosed  by  the  evidence? 

The  instruction  required  the  jury  to  believe  that  the 
person  who  threw  the  bomb  was  a  member  of  the  con- 
spiracy, and  that  the  bomb  was  thrown  in  pursuance  of 
the  objects  of  the  conspiracy  and  in  furtherance  of  the 
common  object. 

These  could  be  proved  bv  the  circumstances  surround- 
ing the  transaction  and  the  occurrences  detailed  as  part  of 
the  res  gestac,  and  if  they  were  so  shown  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  jury,  the  identity  of  the  bomb-thrower  was 
immaterial. 

While  it  may  be  true,  as  suggested  by  counsel,  that  the 
commission  of  the  crime  does  not  show  that  the  principal 
actor  was  a  member  of  the  conspiracy;  yet  the  conspiracy 
may  be  shown,  and  the  acts  of  the  conspirators  before 
and  at  the  time  of  the  commission  of  the  crime  may  also- 
be  shown,  as  proof  that  the  conspirators  were  accessories 
to  the  perpetration  of  the  crime.  If  the  jury  were  satis- 
fied from  the  evidence,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that 
the  bomb  was  thrown  by  a  member  of  the  conspiracy, 


73 

and  in  pursuance  of  its  purposes,  then  the  status  of  the 
members  of  the  conspiracy,  as  accessories  to  the  perpetra- 
tion of  the  crime  was  fixed.  If  the  proof  *  disclosed  the 
name  of  the  principal  actor,  or  established  his  identity  in 
any  other  way,  very  good;  but  that  fact  would  be  im- 
portant only  in  so  far  as  it  was  instrumental  in  bringing 
all  the  violators  of  the  law  to  justice.  If,  however,  the 
proof  did  not  disclose  the  identity  of  the  principal  actor, 
then  proof  of  his  character  as  one  of  the  conspirators 
might  be  shown  by  his  acts,  in  accordance  with  the  plans 
and  in  furtherance  of  the  purposes  of  the  conspiracy ; 
but  this,  too,  would  be  important  in  relation  to  the  de- 
fendants, only  in  so  far  as  it  tended  to  establish  their 
characters  as  accessories. 

But  suppose  that  the  evidence  did  not  satisfy  the  jury 
that  the  person  who  threw  the  bomb  was  a  member  of 
the  conspiracy?  Such  failure  in  the  proof  would  not 
make  this 'instruction  vicious.  There  was  evidence  tend- 
ing to  show  that  fact,  and  the  instruction  was  given  for 
the  purpose  of  stating  the  law  applicable  to  the  hypothesis 
that  the  bomb  was  thrown  by  a  person  whom  the  evi- 
dence showed  was  a  member  of  the  conspiracy,  if  the 
•evidence  showed  that  a  conspiracy  existed. 

In  this,  as  in  other  parts  of  their  brief,  counsel  for 
plaintiffs  in  error  seem  to  deal  with  this  as  a  prosecution 
and  conviction  for  conspiracy,  treating  that  as  the  substan- 
tive crime,  instead  of  a  prosecution  for  a  crime  already 
committed;  losing  sight  of  the  fact,  that  the  proof  of  the 
•conspiracy  was  made  for  the  sole  purpose  of  establishing 
the  position  of  members  of  the  conspiracy  as  accessories 
to  the  crime  of  murder. 

In  discussing  the  propriety  of  this  instruction,  counsel 
for  plaintiffs  in  error  say  (brief,  239) : 


74 

"  Our  statute  declares  that  an  accessory  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  a  principal  and  punished  accordingly.  This 
only  places  the  principal  and  accessory  on  the  same  foot- 
ing, so  far  as  punishment  is  concerned,  but  it  does  not 
abolish  the  common  law  distinction  between  the  principal 
who  actually  commits  the  deed,  and  the  accessory,  who 
simply  lends  assistance." 

Though  we  scarcely  see  the  relevancy  of  the  discussion 
to  this  branch  of  the  case,  we  will  answer  it  here.  It 
would  seem  that  this  identical  question  had  been  long  ago 
settled  by  this  court,  beyond  cavil.  Early  in  the  judicial 
history  of  this  state  that  question  was  decided,  and  the 
decision  then  made  has  stood  unchanged  till  the  present 
time. 

In  case  Baxter  v.  The  People,  3  Gilm.,  381,  December 
term,  1846,  the  court  said: 

"  By  the  seventh,  eighth,  ninth  and  eleventh  instruc- 
tions, the  court  is  substantially  asked  to  instruct  the  jury, 
that  if  the  evidence  shows  the  defendant  to  be  guilty 
as  accessory  before  the  fact,  that  he  cannot  be  con- 
victed under  this  indictment  for  murder.  The  correctness 
of  the  decision  of  the  court  in  refusing  to  give  these 
instructions  must  depend  upon  the  construction  of  our 
statute.  By  the  thirteenth  section  of  the  criminal  code  it 
is  declared:  '  An  accessory  is  he  or  she  who  stands  by 
and  aids,  abets  or  assists,  or  who,  not  being  present  aiding, 
abetting  or  assisting,  hath  advised  or  encouraged  the 
perpetration  of  the  crime.  He  or  she  who  thus  aids,  abets 
or  assists,  advises  or  encourages,  shall  be  deemed  and 
considered  as  principal  and  punished  accordingly,'  and 
the  inquiry  is,  whether  proof  that  the  prisoner  was  acces- 
sory to  the  crime  before  the  fact  will  sustain  an  indictment 
against  him  as  principal.  The  act  says  that  such  acces- 
sories shall  be  deemed  and  considered  as  principals  and 
punished  accordingly.  This  act  then  makes  all  accesso- 
ries at  or  before  the  fact  principals.  The  declaration  that 
they  shall  be  '  deemed  and  considered  '  is  as  unequivocal 
an  expression  as  if  the  act  had  said,  '  are  hereby  declared 


75 

to  be.'  It  is  true,  the  act  states  what  an  accessory  is, 
but  then  it  declares  in  substance  that  he  is  principal. 

"  It  was  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  system  pursued  By 
the  legislature,  to  go  on  and  define  what  .an  accessory  is, 
as  it  has  defined  all  other  offenses,  which  it  has  attempted 
to  enumerate,  and  it  does  not  detract  from  the  force  of  the 
provision,  that  they  shall  be  deemed  and  considered  as  prin- 
cipals. The  distinction  between  accessories  before  the 
fact  and  principals  is  in  fact  abolished.  At  the  common 
law,  an  accessory  at  the  fact  might  be  indicted  and  con- 
victed as  principal,  for  the  common  law  declares  that  he 
who  stands  by,  advises  and  encourages  the  murderer  to 
give  the  blow  gives  the  blow  himself  as  much  as  if  he 
held  the  weapon  in  his  own  hands." 

"  Our  legislature  has  gone  one  step  further  and  provided 
that  he  who,  not  being  present,  hath  advised  or  encouraged 
the  giving  of  the  blow  hath  given  the  blow  as  much  as  if 
he  had  stood  by  and  encouraged  it,  or  even  had  struck  the 
blow  with  his  own  hands.  It  is  no  more  a  fiction  of  the 
law  to  declare  that  he  gives  the  blow  by  advising  and 
encouraging  it  beforehand  than  it  is  to  affirm  that  he 
gives  it  by  advising  and  encouraging  it  at  the  time.  Both 
proceed  upon  the  principle  that  what  we  advise  or  procure 
another  to  do,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  we  do  ourselves.  All 
are  principals  and  as  such  should  be  indicted  and  punished. 
Indeed,  they  must  be  indicted  as  principals  or  not  at  all, 
for  they  are  declared  by  the  act  to  be  principals.  If  they 
are  not  to  be  indicted  as  principals,  the  very  object  of  the 
law  is  defeated;  if  they  are  to  be  indicted  as  accessories, 
they  must  be  tried  and  convicted  as  accessories,  and  then 
they  could  not  be  tried  till  after  the  conviction  of  the 
principals,  for,  as  we  have  before  seen,  we .  are  bound  by 
the  rules  of  evidence  of  the  common  law,  of  which  that  is 
one. 

"  Such  is  the  inevitable  consequence  unless  they  are 
indicted  and  tried  for  murder,  of  which  the  statute  says 
they  shall  be  deemed  and  considered  guilty.  There  is  no 
doubt  but  the  pleader  may,  if  he  choose,  and  perhaps  it 
would  be  advisable  to  describe  the  circumstances  of  the 
offense  as  they  actually  transpired,  as  it  is  in  an  indictment 
against  an  accessory  before  the  fact;  but  if  the  stating 
part  of  the  indictment  be  that  way,  it  should  conclude  as 


76 

for  murder,  for   that   is   really  the   offense   of    which   the 
part}'  is  guilty,  if  at  all.  *  * 

"  Then,  as  by  the  law  in  this  case  the  acts  of  the  prin- 
cipal are  made  the  acts  of  the  accessory,  he  thereby 
becomes  the  principal,  and  may  be  charged  as  having 
done  the  acts  himself.  He  shall  be  deemed  and  considered 
as  principal  and  punished  accordingly.  The  Circuit  court 
decided  correctly  in  refusing  these  instructions." 

The  section  of  the  law  (Sec.  13  Criminal  Code)  con- 
strued by  the  court  in  the  above  case,  is  identical  with  the 
law  in  force  upon  the  same  subject  at  the  present  time, 
Sec.  2,  Div.  II,  Criminal  Code. 

By  the  foregoing  decision  all  distinction  between  prin- 
cipals and  assessories  before  and  at  the  fact  is  declared  to 
be  abolished  by  the  law,  and  as  to  all  the  essentials  of  the 
crime,  degrees  of  guilt  and  punishment,  they  are  treated 
by  the  law  as  principals.  The  reasoning  of  the  court  in 
this  case  is  logical  and  unanswerable,  and  its  conclusions 
have  never  been  changed  or  modified.  This  doctrine  is 
clearly  affirmed  by  this  court  in  Brennan  et  al.  v.  The 
People,  15  111.,  511,  where  the  court  say: 

"  One  who  counsels  or  procures  another  to  commit  a 
crime,  although  he  may  be  absent  when  the  act  is  done,  is 
equally  guilty  with  the  one  perpetrating  it.  By  the 
express  provisions  of  our  statute,  he  is  deemed  to  be  a 
principal  offender  and  may  be  indicted  and  punished  as 
such." 

"•  If  several  persons  conspire  to  do  an  unlawful  act  and 
death  happens  in  the  prosecution  of  the  common  object, 
all  are  alike  guilty  of  the  homicide.  The  act  of  one  of 
them  done  in  furtherance  of  the  original  design  is,  in  con- 
sideration of  the  law,  the  act  of  all.  And  he  who  advises 
or  encourages  another  to  do  an  illegal  act  is  responsible 
for  all  the  natural  and  probable  consequences  that  may 
arise  from  its  perpetration." 

2  Hawk,  P.  C.,  Ch.  29;  i  Hale,  P.  C.,  Ch. 
34;  i  Russell  on  Crimes,  24;  i  Chitty 
Crim.  Law,  264. 


77 

In  further  discussing  people's  instruction  number  4, 
counsel  for  plaintiffs  in  error  refer  to  the  case  of  Baxter  v. 
The  People,  2  Gilm.,  578,  as  supporting  the  position  that, 
in  the  prosecution  of  one  whom  the  proof  shows  was  an 
accessory,  it  would  be  necessary  to  show  the  guilt  of  the 
principal  before  the  defendant  could  be  convicted. 

We  have  carefully  examined  the  case  of  Baxter  v.  The 
People,  2  Gilm.,  578,  and  same  case  3  Gilm.,  368,  and  can 
find  nothing  announcing  such  a  rule,  in  either  of  said 
cases. 

Nor  is  above  attributed  to  the  court  in  the  Baxter  case 
deducible  from  the  decision  therein.  The  statute  says 
that  whoever  aids,  abets,  assists  or  hath  advised  and  en- 
couraged the  perpetration  of  the  crime  shall  be  deemed 
and  considered  as  principal;  and  this  court  in  the  Baxter 
case  said  that  the  words,  "  deemed  and  considered  "  are 
equivalent  to  "  are  hereby  declared  to  be."  And  the 
court  further  says,  that  while  it  is  proper  in  drawing  an 
indictment  against  one  whose  connection  with  the  crime 
has  been  in  the  character  of  accessory,  that  "  the  pleader 
"  may,  if  he  chooses,  and  perhaps  it  would  be  advisable 
"  to  describe  the  circumstances  of  the  offense  as  they  ac- 
"  tually  transpired;  yet  the  indictment  should  conclude  for 
•'  murder,  for  that  is  really  the  offense  of  which  the  party 
"  is  guilty,  if  at  all." 

It  is  even  optional  with  the- prosecutor  whether  he  will 
detail  the  acts  of  the  accused  in  the  character  of  acces- 
sory or  principal,  so  the  indictment  charges  the  substan- 
tive offense,  and  if  the  evidence  satisfactorily  shows  the 
guilt  of  the  accused  in  either  capacity,  the  indictment 
would  be  good,  and  the  conviction  would  stand.  For, 
says  the  court:  "  Our  legislature  has  gone  a  step  further 
and  provided  that  he  who,  not  being  present,  hath  advised 


78 

and  encouraged  the  giving  of  the  blow,  hath  given  the 
blow  as  much  as  if  he  had  stood  by  and  encouraged  it,  or 
even  had  struck  the  blow  with  his  own  hand." 

So  in  this  case,  each  one  of  plaintiffs  in  error  is  de- 
scribed as  the  principal  actor  in  certain  counts  of  the  in- 
dictment, and  in  certain  other  counts  his  acts  are  de- 
scribed as  accessory,  but  all  the  counts  conclude  for  mur- 
der; and  if  the  jury  were  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt,  from  the  evidence,  either  that  the  accused  or  any 
of  them  threw  the  bomb,  or  w.as  present,  aiding,  abetting 
or  assisting,  or  had  advised  and  encouraged  the  perpetra- 
tion of  the  crime,  they  were  justified  in  finding  those 
whom  the  evidence  thus  inculpated,  guilty  of  murder;  and 
it  matters  not  that  no  witness  is  able  to  describe  the  per- 
son who  threw  the  bomb,  or  swears  that  he  saw  the  hand 
that  threw  it. 

In  such  case  the  jury  must  be  satisfied  from  the  evi- 
dence that  the  bomb  was  thrown  in  pursuance  of  the  ad- 
vice and  encouragement  of  the  accused,  and  of  this,  we 
contend  the  jury  may  be  satisfied  by  other  inculpatory 
evidence  though  the  identity  of  the  principal  actor  be  not 
disclosed. 

We  maintain  that  the  case  of  Ritzman  v.  The  People, 
no  111.,  362,  is  in  point.  In  that  case  there  was  a  posi- 
tive conflict  in  the  evidence  as  to  who  actually  struck  the 
fatal  blow,  and  it  cannot  b3  said  that  the  jury  determined 
that  fact.  There  was  as  much  or  more  evidence  that  the 
blow  was  struck  by  Spies  as  that  it  was  struck  by  the 
accused,  and  the  accused  was  convicted,  in  sustaining 
which,  this  court  used  the  following  language: 

"  So  far  as  the  accused  is  concerned  under  the  proofs 
in  this  case,  we  think  it  wholly  immaterial  whether  the 
missile  in  question  was  thrown  by  the  hand  of  the  ac- 


79 

cused,  or  of  some  one  of  his  co-trespassers.  That  the 
defendant  was  present,  and  ,to  say  the  least  of  it,  encourag- 
ing the  perpetration  of  the  offense,  cannot  be  denied,  unless 
we  are  prepared  to  set  aside  the  testimony  of  Mrs. 
Lovett  and  Barry,  two  wholly  disinterested  witnesses, 
and  accept  the  unsupported  statement  of  the  accused, 
which,  of  course,  we  cannot  do. 

'•  And  if  the  defendant  was  so  present,  encouraging  the 
perpetration  of  the  offense,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say 
that  by  the  express  provisions  of  our  statute,  he  is  made 
a  principal,  and  equally  guilty  with  the  one  who  person- 
ally gave  the  fatal  blow." 

The  crime  committed  by  the  person  whose  position 
with  relation  to  the  act  is  that  of  accessory  consists  of  ad- 
vising and  encouraging  the  perpetration  of  the  crime,  and 
if  the  jury  are  satisfied  that  the  crime  was  the  result  of 
or  was  done  in  pursuance  of  such  aid,  advice  and  en- 
couragement, the  guilt  of  the  person  so  aiding,  advising 
and  encouraging  is  sufficiently  proved.  In  fact,  whenever 
the  proof  fails  to  show  which  one  of  a  number  of  persons 
actually  did  the  deed,  the  individual  perpetrator  is  as 
much  unknown  as  he  is,  in  case  no  witness  swears  that  he 
saw  the  principal  actor,  or  attempts  to  identify  him  in  any 
way  whatever. 

If  any  further  authority  were  needed  on  this  proposi- 
tion, it  would  seem  that  the  decision  of  this  court  in  case 
Kennedy  v.  The  People,  40  111.,  488,  would  settle  conclu- 
sively the  question  of  the  immateriality  of  the  identity  of 
the  principal  actor.  In  that  case  the  following  instruction 
was  given  on  behalf  of  the  people: 

••  5.  The  court  further  instructs  the  jury  that  if  the 
evidence  convinces  you,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  that 
Patrick  Maloney  was  killed  in  manner  and  form  as 
charged  in  the  indictment,  and  that  this  defendant,  John 
Kennedy,  was  present,  and  in  any  manner  aided,  abet- 


8o 

ted  or  assisted  in  such  killing,  then  the  jury  should  find 
him  guilty,  although  there  was  no  eye-witnes»jo  the  fact 
of  such  killing." 

Upon  review,  this  court  held  the  foregoing  instruction 
unobjectionable.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  cases  of 
Baxter  v.  The  People,  Breunan  v.  The  People,  and  Kennedy 
v.  The  People,  supra,  the  leading  cases  in  our  state  on  the 
law  of  accessory  were  all  decisive  of  the  legal  force  and 
meaning  of  section  13,  criminal  code,  statutes  of  1845. 
Since  those  decisions  were  rendered,  section  3,  division 
II,  criminal  code,  stamtes  1874,  heretofore  referred  to, 
was  enacted. 

The  next  objection  urged  by  counsel  for  plaintiffs  in 
error  is  to 

INSTRUCTION  NUMBER  5. 

"  If  the  jury  believe,  from  the  evidence,  beyond  a  rea- 
sonable doubt,  that  there  was  in  existence  in  this  county 
and  state  a  conspiracy  to  overthrow  the  existing  order  of 
society,  and  to  bring  about  social  revolution  by  force,  or 
to  destroy  the  legal  authorities  of  this  city,  county  or  state 
by  force,  and  that  -  the  defendants,  or  any  of  them,  were 
parties  to  such  conspiracy,  and  that  Degan  was  killed  in 
the  manner  described  in  the  j  indictment;  that  he  was 
killed  by  a  bomb,  and  that  the  bomb  was  thrown  by  a 
party  to  the  conspiracy,  then  any  of  the  defendants  who 
were  members  of  such  conspiracy  at  that  time  are  in  this 
case  guilty  of  murder;  and  that,  too, 'although  the  jury 
may  further  believe,  from  the  evidence,  that  the  time  and 
place  for  the  bringing  about  of  such  revolution,  or  the 
destruction  of  such  authorities,  had  not  been  definitely 
agreed  upon  by  the  conspirators,  but  was  left  to  them  and 
the  exigencies  of  time,  or  to  the  judgment  of  any  of  the 
co-conspirators." 

It  is  not  denied  that  this  instruction  correctly  states  the 
law  applicable  to  a  certain  hypothesis,  but  it  is  denied  that 


8i 

there  is  any  evidence  in  the  record  to  warrant  such  an 
instruction.  But  little  discussion  is  necessary  on  this 
branch  of  the  case.  If  there  is  any  evidence  in  the  record 
to  which  the  instruction  will  apply,  then  the  instruction 
was  properly  given.  We  submit  that  there  is  ample  evi- 
dence in  the  record  to  warrant  the  giving  of  this  instruc- 
tion. 

It  is  not  denied,  in  this  part  of  their  argument,  by  coun- 
sel fort  plaintiffs  in  error,  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  to 
bring  about  the  social  revolution  by  force,  and  to  destroy 
whatever  agencies  the  law  might  interpose  to  prevent  the 
success  of  the  revolutionary  movement.  This  seems  to 
be  admitted,  in  this  connection,  at  least,  for  the  sake  of 
the  argument.  The  part  objected  to  is  the  following: 

"  Although  the  jury  may  further  believe,  from  the  evi- 
dence, that  the  time  and  place  for  the  bringing  about  of 
such  revolution,  or  the  destruction  of  such  authorities, 
had  not  been  definitely  agreed  upon  by  the  conspirators, 
but  was  left  to  them  and  the  exigencies  of  time,  or  to  the 
judgment  of  any  of  the  co-conspirators." 

The  authorities  on  criminal  law  all  agree  that  it  is  ex- 
ceedingly difficult  to  prove  a  conspiracy,  and  more  espe- 
cially the  unlawful  purposes  and  designs  of  a  conspiracy, 
by  direct,  positive  testimony.  The  very  life  and  essence 
of  conspiracy  is  secrecy.  On  this  account  the  rules  of 
evidence  so  rigidly  applied  in  proving  other  offenses  are 
greatly  relaxed  in  an  attempt  to  prove  a  conspiracy.  Not 
only  the  conspiracy,  therefore,  but  the  plans  and  purposes 
thereof  must  be  proved  largely  by  circumstances,  by  acts, 
and  by  the  declarations  of  individual  members  of  the  con- 
spiracy. In  support  of  this  instruction  we  therefore  call 
attention  to  the  following  extracts  from  the  People's  Ex- 
hibits and  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  as  shown  by  the 
record : 


82 

People's  Exhibit  15,  Vol.  Exhibits  40,  Most's  Book: 

"  If  a  revolutionary  deed  is  proposed,  it  shoirid  not  be 
talked  about,  but  silently  pursued.  If  assistance  is  indis- 
pensable it  may  be  chosen,  but  a  misstep  is  fatal." 

People's  Exhibit  18,  Alarm,  October  4,  1884: 

"A  word  to  tramps.  Can  you  do  nothing  to  insure 
those  whom  you  are  about  to  orphan  against  a  like  fate? 
The  waves  will  mock  your  act;  but  stroll  down  the  ave- 
nue, look  in  the  voluptuous  homes^and  discover  the  rob- 
bers who  have  despoiled  you.  Here  let  your  tragedy  be 
enacted,  and  send  forth  your  petition  that  will  never  be 
heeded  except  when  read  in  the  glare  of  conflagration,  or 
when  handed  to  your  oppressors  upon  the  point  of  the 
sword.  You  need  no  organization,  that  would  be  a  det- 
riment, but  avail  yourselves  of  the  materials  of  warfare 
which  science  has  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  poor.  Learn 
the  use  of  dynamite." 

People's  Exhibit  21,  Alarm,  October  18,  1884: 
Commenting  on  an  article  in  the  Inter  Ocean: 

"  The  Inter  Ocean  man  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  one 
man  with  a  dynamite  bomb  is  "equal  to  a  regiment  of  mi- 
litia. The  method  of  warfare  has  been  revolutionized  by 
the  discoveries  of  modern  science,  and  will  use  explosives 
in  the  coming  conflict." 

People's  Exhibit  31,  Alarm,  December  6,  1884: 

"  Dynamite,  the  protection  of  the  poor  against  the  ar- 
mies of  the  rich."  The  article  again  quotes  from  Gen. 
Sheridan's  report  of  November  10,  1884,  as  to  the  .ease 
of  constructing  and  carrying  explosives,  and  further  says: 

"  A  hint  to  the  wise  is  sufficient.  One  dynamite  bomb, 
properly  placed,  will  destroy  a  regiment  of  soldiers. 
Their  First  Regiment  may  as  well  disband,  for  if  it  should 
ever  level  its  guns  upon  the  workmen  of  Chicago,  it  can 
be  annihilated." 

People's  Ex.  42,  Alarm,  April  18,  1885: 

"  All   governments   exist  by  the  abridgment  of  human 


83 

liberty.  Domineering  powers  should  be  treated  as  ene- 
mies. Assassination  will  remove  the  evil.  Man  will 
always  need  officers,  teachers,  leaders,  but  not  bosses, 
jailers  or  drivers.  Man's  leader  is  his  friend,  his  driver, 
his  enemy.  Assassination,  properly  applied,  is  wise, 
humane  and  brave.  For  freedom,  all  things  are  just." 

People's  Ex.  54,    Alarm,  December  26,  1885  : 

"  The  revolutionist:  As  to  important  affairs,  he  must 
consult  with  his  comrades,  but  in  execution  depend  upon 
himself.  Each  must  be  self-operating,  and  must  ask  help 
only  when  imperatively  necessary." 

People's  Ex.  75,  Arbeiter   Zeitung,  October  8,  1885: 

"  All  organized  workingmen  should  engage  in  a  gen- 
eral prosecution  of  Pinkerton's  secret  police.  Everv  dav, 
somewhere,  some  of  their  carcasses  should  be  found. 
This  should  be  kept  up  until  nobody  would  consent  to 
become  the  blood-hounds  of  these  assassins." 

People's  Ex.  83,  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  December  31, 
1885.  Report  of  meeting  of  north  side  group,  519  Lar- 
rabee  street: 

"  Schwab  said:  It  is  only  four  months  till  the  ist  of 
Mav.  Little  has  been  said  to  insure  the  success  of  the 
eight-hour  movement.  The  workingmen  should  arm  be- 
fore the  ist  of  May  to  meet  Pinkerton's  scoundrels,  the 
police  and  the  militia.  The  lessons  of  the  past  should 
serve  as  a  warning.  Anarchists  arm  themselves  because 
they  are  workingmen,  and  they  preach  arming  that 
workingmen  may  be  able  to  liberate  themselves." 

People's  Ex.  84,  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  January  6,  1885: 

"  A  new  militia  law."  "  After  the  adoption  of  the 
militia  law  Lehr  and  Wehr  Verein  gradually  disappeared, 
the  lesson  of  1877  has  been  forgotten.  It  ceased  to  pay 
to  be  a  socialist  and  the  party  dwindled,  but  what  was 
left  was  effective;  where  six  years  ago  a  thousand  men 
were  armed  with  muskets,  to-day  we  have  a  power 
which  cannot  be  fought  by  law  or  force,  an  invincible 
network  of  fighting  groups." 


S4 

People's   Ex.  90,  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  April  21,  1886: 

"  He  who  submits  to  the  present  order  of  thirfgs  has  no 
right  to  complain  about  capitalistic  extortion,  for  order 
means  sustaining  that.  A  rebel  who  puts  himself  oppo- 
site the  cannon's  mouth  with  an  empty  fist  is  a  fool." 

People's  Ex.  109,  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  March  15,  1885: 

"  In  all  revolutionary  actions  three  epochs  are  to  be 
distinguished.  First,  the  time  for  preparation;  then  the 
moment  of  action  and  finally  the  period  which  follows  the 
deed.  First  the  revolutionist  should  study  to  save  com- 
batants, to  avoid  danger  of  discovery.  It  is  easy  to  be 
seen  that  the  danger  of  disco  very  is  increased  by  the  num- 
ber of  actors  and  vice  versa.  Therefore  in  the  commis- 
sion of  a  deed,  a  comrade  not  living  in  the  localitv  should 

O  V 

be  chosen  for  the  act.  Again,  if  one  comrade  is  able  to 
perform  the  deed  alone,  he  should  call  no  one  to  his  assist- 
ance. The  forming  of  special  groups  of  action  is  a  neces- 
sity, especially  should  publicity  be  avoided  in  a  country 
like  America.  In  the  formation  of  a  group  of  action,  the 
greatest  care  should  be  exercised  to  select  men  whose 
heads  and  hearts  are  in  the  right  spot.  When  an  action 
is  resolved  upon  it  must  be  executed  as- speedily  as  possi- 
ble, to  prevent  the  dangers  of  delay.  In  the  action  one 
must  be  upon  the  spot.  When  the  action  is  completed  the 
group  scatters.  If  this  rule  is  acted  upon  the  danger  of 
discovery  is  greatly  reduced.  Because  of  the  neglect  of 
these  precautions  most  of  the  dangers  of  the  past  have 
occurred.  The  complete  success  of  an  action  is  the  best 
possible  impulse  to  a  new  deed.  Already  this  small  war- 
fare has  commenced  at  many  points.  Finally  will  come 
the  rising  en  masse" 

"  At  a  meeting  on  April  22d,  Parsons  said  in  referring 
to  the  opening  of  the  new  board  of  trade  building:  '  What 
a  splendid  opportunity  there  will  be  next  Tuesday  night 
for  some  bold  fellow  to  make  the  capitalists  tremble  by 
blowing  up  the  building  and  all  the  thieves  and  robbers 
there.'"  (Testimony  of  Johnson,  Vol.  J,  p.  385  et  seq.} 

"  At  a  meeting  at  Greif's  Hall,  August  19,  1885,  Par- 
sons, referring  to  the  late  strike  of  the  street-car  employes, 


§5 

said:  *  If  but  one  shot  had  been  fired  and  Bonfield  had 
happened  to  be  shot,  the  whole  city  would  have  been 
deluged  in  blood,  and  the  social  revolution  would  have 
been  inaugurated.' '  (Testimony  of  Johnson,  Vol.  J,  p. 
404.) 

Also  Spies'  declaration  to  the  News  reporter,  Wil- 
kinson. 

"He  said  they  had  no  leaders;  one  was  instructed  as 
well  as  another,  and  when  the  great  day  came  each  one 
would  know  his  duty  and  do  it.  I  tried  to  find  out  when 
this  would  probably  occur,  and  he  did  not  fix  the  date 
precisely  or  approximately  at  that  time.  At  another  of 
those  interviews  he  said  it  would  probably  occur  in  the 
first  conflict  between  the  police  and  the  militia;  that  if 
there  should  be  a  universal  strike  for  this  eight-hour 
system,  there  would  probably  be  a  conflict  of  some  sort 
brought  about  in  some  way  between  the  First  and  Sec- 
ond regiments  of  the  Illinois  National  Guard  and  the 
police  and  the  dynamiters  on  the  other  hand." 

"  He  vaguely  spoke  of  a  list  of  prominent  citizens  who 
might  suddenly  be  blown  up  one  at  a  time  or  all  at 
once. 

•k  He  described  the  character  of  the  organization;  that 
if  there  were  three,  the  first  would  know  the  second 
and  the  second  the  third,  but  not  the  third  the  first; 
that  it  was  nihilistic  in  its  character,  and  that  they  were 
knowrj  by  other  means  than  names."  (Abst.,  Vol.  2,  pp. 
68,  69,  7 1 ;  Rec.,  Vol.  J,  pp.  150,  151,170.) 

"  The  plan  stated  by  Engel  was  adopted  by  us  with  the 
understanding  that  every  group  ought  to  act  independent- 
ly according  to  the  general  plan. 

"  Q.  What  was  said,  if  anything,  as  to  what  should  be 
done  in  case  the  police  should  attempt  to  disperse  the 
Haymarket  meeting? 

"  A.  There  was  nothing  said  about  the  Haymarket. 
There  was  nothing  expected  that  the  police  would  get  to 
the  Haymarket;  only  if  strikers  were  attacked  we  should 
strike  down  the  police  however  we  could,  with  bombs  or 
whatever  would  be  at  our  disposition."  (Waller's  testi- 
mony, Abst.,  Vol.  2,  p.  5;  Rec.  I,  pp.  65,66.) 


86 

Also,  report  of  Spies'  speech  at  Hay  market: 

\ 

"  The  day  is  not  distant  when  we  will  resort  to  hang- 
ing these  men.  McCormick  is  the  man  who  created  the 
row  Monday,  and  he  must  be  held  responsible  for  the 
murder  of  our  brothers.  [Cries  of  '  Hang  him.']  Don't 
make  any  threats;  they  are  of  no  avail.  Whenever  you 
get  ready  to  do  something,  do  it  and  don't  make  any  threats 
beforehand."  (Abst.,  Vol.  2,  pp.  130,  131;  Rec.,  Vol.  J, 
p.  279.) 

The  foregoing  extracts  from  the  record  clearly  show 
that  the  plans  of  the  conspiracy  contemplate  the  doing  of 
revolutionary  work,  the  accomplishment  of  which  must 
be  left,  of  necessity,  largely  to  individual  discretion  and 
individual  action.  In  fact,  as  appears,  the  main  purpose 
of  the  International  is  the  work  of  propagation,  the  organ- 
ization of  groups  and  the  drilling  and  preparation  of  the 
members  for  revolutionary  work;  but  the  execution  of  the 
work,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  nature  of  the  particular  en- 
terprise and  the  time  and  mode  of  action  are  left  largelv 
to  individual  determination. 

We  maintain  that  the  foregoing  extracts  from  the  evi- 
dence warrant  the  giving  of  the  instruction  complained  of. 


INSTRUCTION  NUMBER  5^. 

Counsel  for  plaintiffs  in  error  devote  much  time  and 
space  to  the  consideration  and  unfriendly  criticism  of 
People's  instruction  number  5^,  which  reads  as  follows  : 

"  If  these  defendants,  or  any  two  or  more  of  them  con- 

* 

spired  together,  with  or  without  any  other  person  or  per- 
sons, to  excite  the  people  or  classes  of  the  people  of  this 
city  to  sedition,  tumult,  and  riot,  to  use  deadly  weapons 
against  and  take  the  lives  of  other  persons,  as  a  means  to 
carry  their  designs  and  purposes  into  effect,  and  in  pur- 


87 

suance  of  such  conspiracy  and  in  furtherance  of  its  objects 
any  of  the  persons  conspiring,  publicly,  by  print  or  speech, 
advised  and  encouraged  the  commission  of  murder  with- 
out designating  time,  place  or  occasion  at  which  it  should 
be  done,  and  in  pursuance  of  and  induced  by  such  advice 
or  encouragement,  murder  was  committed,  then  all  such 
conspirators  are  guilty  of  murder  whether  the  person  who 
perpetrated  such  murder  can  be  identified  or  not.  If  such 
murder  was  committed  in  pursuance  of  such  advice  or 
encouragement,  and  was  induced  thereby,  it  does  not 
matter  what  change,  if  any,  in  the  order  or  condition  of 
society,  or  what*,  if  any  advantage  to  themselves  or  others, 
the  conspirators  proposed  as  the  result  of  their  conspir- 
acy, nor  does  it  matter  whether  such  advice  and  encour- 
agement had  been  frequent  and  long  continued,  except  in 
determining  whether  the  perpetrator  was  or  was  not 
acting  in  pursuance  of  such  advice  and  encouragement, 
and  was  or  was  not  induced  thereby  to  commit  the 
murder. 

If  there  was  such  conspiracy  as  in  this  instruction  is  re- 
cited, such  advice  and  encouragement  was  given  and 
murder  committed  in  pursuance  of  and  induced  thereby, 
then  all  of  such  conspirators  are  guilty  of  murder.  Nor 
does  it  matter,  if  there  was  such  a  conspiracy,  how  im- 
practicable or  impossible  of  success  its  ends  and  aims  were, 
nor  how  foolish  or  ill-arranged  were  the  plans  for  its 
execution,  except  as  bearing  on  the  question,  whether 
there  was  or  was  not  such  conspiracy." 

Concerning  this  instruction,  counsel  first  suggest: 

"  The  only  act  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiffs  in  error  re- 
quired to  be  found  under  this  instruction,  by  the  jury,  is 
the  mere  matter  of  conspiring  together,  or  with  others, 
to  excite  the  people  or  classes  of  the  people  to  riot,  tu- 
mult and  sedition,  and  to  the  use  of  deadly  weapons 
against,  and  taking  the  lives  of  other  persons." 

The  foregoing  criticism  does  not  deny  that  the  instruc- 
tion applies  to  and  defines  a  conspiracy  to  do  an  unlaw- 
ful act;  for  surely,  it  will  not  be  contended  that  "  riot, 
"  tumult  and  sedition "  are  lawful,  or  that  exciting  the 


88 

people  "  to  use  deadly  weapons  against,  and  Jo  take  the 
"  lives  of  other  persons,"  would  be  highly  promotive  of 
good  order  and  the  public  peace.  "  Conspiring  is  a  com- 
"  bination  of  two  persons  or  more,  by  concerted  action, 
"  to  accomplish  a  criminal  or  unlawful  purpose,  or  a  pur- 
"  pose  not  in  itself  criminal,  by  unlawful  or  criminal 

"  means." 

Heaps  v.  Dunham,  95  111.,  583. 

Rev.  Stat.,  Crim.  Code,  Div.  I,  Sec.  46. 

But  it  is  urged  by  counsel  that  a  conspiracy  to  excite 
the  people  to  take  the  lives  of  other  persons  is  not  a  con- 
spiracy to  commit  murder,  or  to  do  any  act  of  violence 
out  of  which  murder  might  result,  but  is  only  "  a  conspir- 
"  acy  to  excite,  a  conspiracy  to  solicit  crime.'1'' 

This  criticism  is  not  hypercritical;  it  is  anarchical;  and 
when  the  International  has  wrought  as  much  confusion 
in  the  operation  of  the  English  common  law  as  this  criti- 
cism does  with  the  English  language,  the  wildest  dream 
of  the  anarchist  will  be  well  nigh  realized.  Suppose  this 
instruction,  instead  of  using  the  expression,  "  to  excite 
"  the  people,"  had  said,  "  to  advise,  encourage  or  induce 
"  the  people,"  would  it  then  be  obnoxious  to  the  criticism 
made  upon  it? 

The  word  "'excite  "  as  used  in  this  connection  is  syn- 
onymous with  "  incite,"  "awaken,"  "animate,"  "-arouse," 
"  stimulate,"  "  influence,"  "  provoke,"  "  agitate,"  and  one 
of  its  usual  meanings  is  "  to  stir  up  to  combined  or  gen- 
eral activity." 

In  Brennan  v.   The  People,  15  111.,  518,  this  court  said  : 

"  It  is  enough  that  a  party  by  his  acts  incites  or  counsels 
another  to  commit  the  crime  ;  in  other  words,  that  he 
intentionally  encourages  its  perpetration." 


89 

The  examination  shows  that  these  jurors  were  men  of 
fair  intelligence.  The  statute  requires  that  they  should 
understand  the  English  language,  and  it  is  a  legal  pre- 
sumption that  they  were  thus  qualified.  If  the  people 
were  excited  to  take  the  lives  of  others,  they  were,  in  con- 
templation of  the  law,  incited  and  induced  to  commit 
murder.  A  conspiracy  to  excite  a  person  to  commit 
crime  is  a  conspiracy  to  induce  and  encourage  a  person 
to  commit  crime,  and  if  a  crime  is  committed  in  pur- 
suance of  and  influenced  by  the  exciting,  inducing  and 
encouraging,  the  conspiracy  has  so  far  accomplished  its 
purpose,  and  every  person  so  conspiring  becomes  acces- 
sory to  the  criminal  act,  and,  under  our  statute,  punishable 
as  principal. 

But  this  instruction  did  not  tell  the  jury  that  the  mere 
conspiring  to  excite  the  people  to  commit  crime,  of  itself, 
made  the  conspirators  guilty  as  accessories  of  whatever 
crime  was  committed.  It  goes  further,  and  says,  "  and  in 
*'  pursuance  of  such  conspiracy,  and  in  furtherance  of  its  ob- 
'•  jects,  any  of  the  persons  so  conspiring,  publicly,  by  print 
-  or  speech,  advised  or  encouraged  the  commission  of  mur- 
•*'  der,without  designating  time,  place  or  occasion  at  which 
-•  it  should  be  done,  and  in  pursuance  of,  and  induced  by 
'•such  advice  or  encouragement,  murder  was  committed, 
*'  then  all  of  such  conspirators  are  guilty  of  murder,  whether 
-•  the  person  who  perpetrated  such  murder  can  be  identified 
"  or  not." 

The  instruction  does  not  premise  that  the  murder  was 
done  simply  in  pursuance  of  the  exciting,  but  as  it  plainly 
states,  "  in  pursuance  of  and  induced  by  such  advice  and 
•"  encouragement,"  and  such  advice  and  encouragement 
must  have  been  given  by  a  person  connected  with  the 
conspiracy,  "  in  pursuance  of  such  conspiracy  and  in 


9° 

"  furtherance  of  its  objects."  We  maintain,. that  if  the 
jury  believed  from  the  evidence  in  this  case,  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  that  murder-  was  committed  in  pur- 
suance of  the  advice  and  encouragement  given  by  a 
member  or  members  of  the  conspiracy,  and  that  such  ad- 
vice and  encouragement  was  given  in  furtherance  of  the 
plans  of  the  conspiracy,  then  the  jury  were  justified  in 
finding  all  the  conspirators  who  were  on  trial  guilty  of 
murder,  and  that  this  instruction  in  so  advising  the  jury 
correctly  stated  the  law. 

But  complaint  is  made  because  the  instruction  told  the 
jury  that  if  murder  was  committed,  etc.,  the  conspirators 
were  guilty,  without  limiting  the  actual  commission  of 
the  murder  to  one  of  the  conspirators.  In  this,  too,  we 
maintain  that  the  instruction  is  correct. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  the  principal  actor  should  be  a 
member  of  a  conspiracy,  in  order  to  charge  as  ac- 
cessories the  conspirators  through  whose  advice  and  en- 
couragement the  crime  was  induced,  and  in  pursuance  of 
which  it  was  committed.  And  so  in  this  case,  if  the- 
jury  believed  from  the  evidence  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt  that  the  bomb  which  exploded  at  the  Haymarket 
meeting  was  thrown  in  pursuance  of  the  advice  and  en- 
couragement of  certain  conspirators,  such  conspirators 
are  guilty  of  the  crime  thereby  perpetrated,  even  though 
the  principal  actor  may  not  have  known  at  the  time  of 
committing  the  act  that  any  such  conspiracy  existed. 

His  guilt  does  not  necessarilv  depend  upon  his  mem- 
bership in  the  conspiracy;  it  depends  upon  his  guilt}'  pur- 
pose in  the  commission  of  the  criminal  act  which  he  did; 
while  the  guilt  of  the  conspirators  depends  upon  their  aid- 
ing, advising  and  encouraging  the  commission  of  the  crime, 


91 

and   their  membership  in  the  conspiracy  fixes  their  char- 
acters as  accessories  to  the  criminal  act. 

If  this  were  a  prosecution  against  the  several  plaintiffs 
in  error  on  a  charge  of  conspiracy,  then  it  will  be  readily 
admitted  that  in  order  to  convict  any  one  of  them,  his 
guilty  knowledge  of  the  conspiracy  must  be  proved. 

We  may  even  go  much  further  than  this  and  insist  that 
if  plaintiffs  in  error  conspired  to  commit  murder,  or  to  en- 
courage, induce  and  bring  about  the  commission  of  mur- 
der, and  if,  in  pursuance  of  such  conspiracy,  murder  was 
committed,  then  the  conspirators  are  guilty  of  such  crime, 
even  though  the  principal  actor  might  net  be. 

Suppose  the  principal  actor  were  a  madman  or  a  fool, 
one  whose  mental  condition  made  him  incapable  of  com- 
mitting a  crime;  in  such  case  no  criminal  intent  could  be 
entertained  by  the  principal  actor,  nor  any  crime  imputed 
to  him,  and  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  those  inducing  or 
encouraging  the  act  would  be  guilty  to  the  same  extent 
that  the  principal  actor  would  have  been,  if  of  sound 
mind. 

In  case  Regina  v.  Ty/er,  8  C.  &  P.  Rep.,  616,  Thorn, 
the  principal  actor,  was  a  madman,  and  yet  the  defend- 
ants, Tyler  and  Price,  were  found  guilty  of  murder  on 
the  ground  of  being  present,  aiding  and  abetting  the 
criminal  act.  - 

In  deciding  that  case,  Lord  DENMAN,  C.  J.,  said: 

"  It  is  not  an  opinion  which  I  mean  to  la}*  down  as  a 
rule  of  law  applicable  to  all  cases,  that  fanaticism  is  a 
proof  of  unsoundness  of  min.d;  but  there  was  in  this  par- 
ticular instance  so  much  religious  fanaticism  and  violent 
excitement  of  mind,  such  great  absurdity  and  extreme 
folly,  that  if  Thorn  was  now  on  his  trial  it  could  hardly  be 
said  from  the  evidence  that  he  could  be  called  to  answer 


92 

for  his  criminal  acts;  that,  therefore,  simplifies  the  ques- 
tion you  will  have  to  decide  and  confines  it  to  the  second 
count  of  the  indictment.  There  these  persons  are  them- 
selves charged  with  having  committed  the  offense;  and 
if  thev  were  aware  of  the  malignant  purpose  entertained 
by  Thorn,  and  shared  in  that  purpose  with  him,  and  were 
present  aiding  and  abetting  and  assisting  him  in  the  com- 
mission of  acts  fatal  to  life, in  the  course  of  accomplishing 
this  purpose,  then  no  doubt  they  are  guilty  as  principals 
on  this  second  count." 

Hawkins,  P.  C.  B.,  i,  Chap.    13,  Sec.   51. 

In  short,  our  own  statute,  Crim.  Code,  Div.  II,  Sec.  15, 
by  express  provision  settles  the  law  as  announced  in  the 
Thorn  case,  and  section.  3,  Div.  II,  heretofore  cited,  ex- 
pressly fixes  the  responsibility  of  those  who  are  accesso- 
ries to  the  perpetration  of  a  crime,  for  the  commission  of 
which  the  principal,  for  any  cause,  is  not  amenable  to  jus- 
tice. 

This  section,  we  maintain,  is  broad  enough  to  embrace 
an  unknown  principal,  as  well  as  a  principal  who  for  any 
other  reason  would  be  exempt  from  punishment  under  the 
laws  of  this  state. 

If  murder  was  committed  in  pursuance  of  .the  advice 
and  encouragement  of  the  conspirators,  as  a  means  of  car- 
rying out  the  purposes  of  the  conspiracy,  then,  although 
neither  time,  place,  occasion,  principal  actor  or  individual 
victim  may  have  been  determined  or  agreed  upon  in  the 
conspiracy,  the  law  will  refer  all  these  to  the  original 
felonious  design,  and  it  will  affix  criminal  responsibility 
for  the  murder  to  all  who  participated  in  the  conspiracy, 
and  make  them  accessories  to  the  criminal  acts.  Nor  do 
we  concede  that  this  instruction  is  obnoxious  to  the 
charge  of  indefiniteness  suggested  by  counsel.  The  ex- 
citing to  riot,  tumult  and  sedition,  to  use  deadly  weapons 


93 

against  and  take  the  lives  of  other  people,  were  the  means 
for  carrying  intb  effect  the  primary  purposes  and  objects  of 
the  conspiracy.  The  ultimate  objects  and  purposes  of  the 
conspiracy  having  been  set  forth  in  other  instructions,  it 
was  not  necessary  to  repeat  them  in  this  one.  The  in- 
structions must  all  be  taken  together. 

"The  true  view  is  doubtless  as  follows:  one  is  respon- 
sible for  what  of  wrong  flows  directly  from  his  corrupt 
intentions;  but  not,  though  intending  wrong,  for  the  pro- 
duct of  another's  independent  act.  If  he  set  in  motion  the 
physical  power  of  another  he  is  liable  for  its  result.  If 
he  contemplated  the  result  he  is  answerable,  though  it  is 
produced  in  a  manner  he  did  not  contemplate.  If  he  did 
not  contemplate  it  in  kind,  yet  if  it  was  the  ordinary  effect 
of  the  cause  he  is  responsible.  If  he  awoke  into  action 
an  indiscriminate  power,  he  is  responsible.  If  he  gave 
directions  vaguely  and  incautiously,  and  the  person  re- 
ceiving them  acted  according  to  what  he  might  have 
foreseen  would  be  the  understanding,  he  is  responsible." 

Bishop's  Crim.  Law,  i,  Sec.  641,  7  Ed. 

"  The  events  though  possibly  falling  out  beyond  his 
original  intentions  were  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things, 
the  probable  consequences  of  what  B  did  under  the  in- 
fluence and  at  the  instigation  of  A.  And  therefore  he  is 
responsible  for  them." 

Foster's  Reports,  370,  Sec.  3. 

"  Where  one  has  entered  into  a  conspiracy  with  others 
to  commit  a  felony  or  other  offense  under  such  circum- 
stances as  will,  when  tested  by  experience,  probably  re- 
sult in  the  unlawful  taking  of  human  life,  he  will  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  understood  the  consequences  which  might 
reasonably  have  been  expected  to  follow  from  carrying 
into  effect  the  purpose  of  the  unlawful  combination,  and 
also  to  have  assented  to  the  doing  of  whatever  would 
reasonably  or  probably  be  necessary  to  accomplish  the  ob- 
ject of  the  conspiracy.  If  the  unlawful  act  agreed  to  be 
done  is  dangerous  or  homicidal  in  its  character,  or  if 
its  accomplishment  will  necessarily  or  probably  require 


94 

the  use  of  force  and  violence  which  may  result  in  the 
taking  of  life  unlawfully,  every  party  to  such --agreement 
will  be  held  criminally  liable  for  whatever  any  of  his  co- 
conspirators  may  do  in  furtherance  of  the  common  design, 
whether  he  is  present  or  not." 

Lamb  v.  The  People,  96  111.,  73. 

"  It  seems  to  be  agreed  that  if  the  felony  committed  be 
the  same  in  substance  with  that  which  was  intended,  and 
varied  only  in  some  circumstances,  as  in  respect  of  the 
time  and  place  at  which,  or  the  means  whereby  it  was 
effected,  the  abettor  of  the  intent  is  altogether  as  much 
an  accessory  as  if  there  had  been  no  variance  at  all  be- 
tween it  and  the  execution  of  it.  As,  if  a  man  advises 
another  to  kill  such  an  one  in  the  night,  and  he  kills  him 
in  the  day;  or,  to  kill  him  in  the  field,  and  he  kills  him  in 
the  town;  or,  to  poison  him,  and  he  stabs  or  shoots  him." 

Hawkins'  P.  C.,  Ch.  29,  B.  2,  Sees.  7,  8,  9, 
n,  16,  18,  20. 

We  shall  not  follow  the  reasoning  of  counsel  for  plaint- 
iffs in  error  in  their  attempts  to  establish  an  analogy  be- 
iween  the  John  Brown  raid,  the  secession  movement, 
culminating  in  the  great  rebellion,  the  Ku  Klux  Klan,  or 
the  anti-Chinese  atrocities,  and  the  crime  for  which  plaint- 
iffs in  error  have  been  convicted.  Neither  the  character 
of  heroism,  with  which  his  admirers  have  invested  the 
one,  nor  the  condemnation  with  which  history  will  prop- 
erly stamp  the  others,  in  the  least  palliates  or  excuses  the 
brutal  and  bloody  butchery  of  the  Chicago  policemen  at 
the  Haymarket  meeting,  nor  will  any  amount  of  senti- 
mentalism  sanctify  this  crime. 

It  is  also  urged  that  instruction  5^  is  bad  because  it 
does  not  refer  to  the  evidence,  and  that  it  contains  mere 
abstract  propositions  of  law.  The  giving  of  an  instruction 
containing  merely  an  abstract  legal  proposition,  is  discre- 
tionary with  the  court. 


95 

Corbin  v.  Shearer,  3  Gilm.,  482. 
Pate  v.  The  People,  til.,  44. 
Parker  v.  Fergus,  52  111.,  419. 
Devlin  v.  77*c  People,  104  111.,  504. 

When  the  attention  of  the  jury  in  a  criminal  case  has 
been  directed  to  the  evidence  in  a  number  of  the  instruc- 
tions it  is  not  necessary  that  this  direction  shall  be  re- 
peated in  every  instruction  given.  Especially  is  this  true 
when,  as  in  this  case,  an  instruction  was  given  by  the 
court,  on  its  own  motion,  whereby  the  jury  were  particu- 
larly cautioned  that  they  must  look  alone  to  the  evidence 
for  proof  of  guilt,  and  that  unless  the  evidence  establishes 
the  guilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  they  must  acquit.  In 
this  instruction  the  court  says: 

"  What  are  the  facts  arid  what  is  the  truth  the  jury 
must  determine  from  the  evidence  and  from  that  alone. 
If  there  are  any  unguarded  expressions  in  any  of  the 
instructions  which  seem  to  assume  the  existence  of  any 
facts,  or  to  be  any  intimations  as  to  what  is  proved,  all 
such  expressions  must  be  disregarded  and  the  evidence 
only  looked  to,  to  determine  the  facts." 

Nor  do  the  authorities  cited  by  counsel  for  plaintiffs  in 
€rror,  Wharton,  Cr.  PI.  &  Pr.,  793;  Murray  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 79  Penn.  State,  241;  Clem  v.  State,  31  Ind., 
480;  Howards.  State,  50  Ind.,  190,  and  People  v.  Valencia, 
43  Cal.,  543,  contravene  the  position  which  we  occupy 
here.  The  proposition  laid  down  by  Wharton,  supra,  is, 
•"  material  error  in  one  instruction  calculated  to  mislead 
is  not  cured  by  a  subsequent  contradictory  instruction." 

That  proposition  is  generally  recognized  as  correct, 
both  in  civil  and  criminal  practice.  In  the  instruction 
complained  of,  however,  there  is  neither  material  nor  im- 
material error,  nor  is  the  rule  of  law  laid  down  in  that 


96 

instruction   contradicted   by,  or  at  variance  with   the  rule 
laid  down  in  any  other  instruction. 

We  have  already  shown  that  the  giving  of  instructions- 
containing  mere  abstract  propositions  of  law  is  dis- 
cretionary with  the  court.  The  mere  giving  of  such  an 
instruction,  then,  cannot  be  error,  if  the  instruction  cor- 
rectly states  the  law  applicable  to  the  case. 

But  an  instruction  which  merely  states  an  abstract  prop- 
osition of  law,  from  its  very  nature,  omits  all  reference  to 
the  evidence,  and  if  such  an  instruction  may  properly  be 
given,  then  the  omission  of  all  reference  to  the  evidence 
therein  cannot  be  material  error. 

The  failure  to  refer  to  the  evidence  in  any  instruction 
where  such  reference  is  usually  made  could  be,  at  most,, 
only  an  omission,  which  might  be  material  or  immaterial, 
but  whether  material  or  immaterial,  such  omission  maybe 
cured  in  another  instruction  which  correctly  states  the 
law  and  directs  the  attention  of  the  jury  to  the  evidence 
as  the  basis  of  their  conclusion.  And  so,  in  this  case.,, 
when  the  court,  of  its  own  motion,  after  all  the  other  in- 
structions had  been  read,  gave  to  the  jury  an  instruction 
particularly  directing  their  attention  to  the  evidence,  as 
their  only  source  of  information  upon  which  to  reach  a 
verdict,  and  especially  cautioning  them  against  all  other 
sources  or  supposed  sources  of  information,  the  omission 
was  fully  cured. 

INSTRUCTION  NUMBER  12. 

Complaint  is  made  of  People's  instruction  12.  which 
was  as  follows: 

"  The  court  instructs  the  jury  that,  as  a  matter  of  law, 
in  considering  the  case,  the  jury  are  not  to  go  beyond  the 


97 

evidence  to  hunt  up  doubts,  nor  must  they  entertain  such 
doubts  as  are  merely  chimerical  or  conjectural.  A  doubt 
to  justify  an  acquittal  must  be  reasonable,  and  it  must 
arise  from  a  candid  and  impartial  investigation  of  all  the 
evidence  in  the  case,  and  unless  it  is  such,  that  were  the 
same  kind  of  doubt  interposed  in  the  graver  transactions 
of  life,  it  would  cause  a  reasonable  and  prudent  man  to  hes- 
itate and  pause,  it  is  insufficient  to  authorize  a  verdict  of 
not  guilty.  If,  after  considering  all  the  evidence,  you 
can  say  you  have  an  abiding  conviction  of  the  truth  of 
the  charge,  you  are  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt." 

No  one  will  deny  the  importance  of  properly  instructing 
the  jury  on  the  subject  of  reasonable  doubt,  and  this 
court  has  frequently  had  occasion  to  review  instructions 
asked  on  this  point.  This  instruction  tells  the  jury  that 
"  a  doubt  to  justify  an  acquittal  must  be  reasonable,"  and 
then  defines  this  state  of  mind,  by  saying:  "Were  the 
"  same  kind  of  doubt  interposed  in  the  graver  transactions 
"  of  life,  it  would  cause  a  reasonable  and  prudent  man  to 
"  hesitate  and  pause." 

Concerning  the  source  from  which  a  reasonable  doubt 
must  spring,  the  instruction  says:  "  It  must  arise  from  a 
"  candid  and  impartial  investigation  of  all  the  evidence  in 
"  the  case,"  and  "  if,  after  considering  all  the  evidence, 
"  you  can  say  you  have  an  abiding  conviction  of  the 
"  truth  of  the  charge,  you  are  satisfied  beyond  a  reasona- 
"  ble  doubt." 

It  is  supposed  that  the  objection  is  urged  because  the 
instruction  did  not  say  that  a  reasonable  doubt  might 
arise  from  a  want  of  evidence. 

If  there  is  "  a  candid  and  impartial  investigation  of  all 
"  the  evidence  in  the  case,"  such  investigation  can  only  be 
made  for  one  purpose,  namely,  that  of  determining  the 
sufficiency  of  the  evidence  to  sustain  the  charge  made  in 


9* 

the  indictment.     If  the  evidence  is  insufficient,  such  insuffi- 

V 

ciency  must,  in  the  first  instance,  arise  out  of  fhe  want  of 
evidence;  and  until  this  want  is  supplied,  until  the  evi- 
dence is  sufficient  to  sustain  the  charge,  the  defendant  is 
not  required  to  say  anything  or  adduce  any  evidence  in 
rebuttal.  A  candid  and  impartial  investigation  of  all  the 
evidence  in  the  case,  therefore,  will  disclose  the  want  as 
well  as  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence,  and  such  want  of 
evidence  can  be  disclosed  in  no  other  way,  nor  are  the 
jury  permitted  to  look  for  it  elsewhere.  This  investiga- 
tion of  the  evidence  will  as  readily  disclose  the  want  of 
evidence  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution  as  it  will  discover 
rebutting  evidence  adduced  by  the  defense.  How  other- 
wise than  by  a  candid  and  impartial  investigation  of 
all  the  evidence  can  the  want  of  evidence  be  discov- 
ered? This  instruction  does  not  tell  the  jury  that  the 
reasonable  doubt  must  arise  alone  out  of  the  evidence 
adduced  by  the  defense,  nor  can  any  such  deduction 
either  logically  or  reasonably  be  drawn  from  it. 

"  The  court  instructs  the  jury  that  a  reasonable  doubt 
means  in  law  a  serious,  substantial  and  well-founded  doubt, 
and  not  the  mere  possibility  of  a  doubt,  and  the  jury  have 
no  right  to  go  outside  of  the  evidence  to  search  for  or 
hunt  up  doubts  (in  or.der  to  acquit  the  defendant)  not 
arising  from  the  evidence  or  want  of  evidence." 

Earl  v.  The  People,  73  111.,  329. 

The  foregoing  instruction  was  sustained  by  this  court, 
and  while  it  contains  the  words  "  the  want  of  evidence," 
we  maintain  that  all  that  is  expressed  thereby  is  neces- 
sarily implied  in  the  language  used  in  the  instruction  now 
in  question,  and  would  be  so  understood  by  any  intelligent 
person. 


99 

In  case  Dunn  v.  The  People,  109  111.,  635,  this  court, 
in  commenting  on  the  subject  of  reasonable  doubt,  said: 

"  This  court  has  had  occasion  in  a  number  of  cases  to 
determine  the  scope  and  meaning  of  the  term  '  reasonable 
doubt,'  and  it  has  been  usually  held  that  a  reasonable 
doubt  is  one  arising  from  a  candid  and  impartial  investi- 
gation of  all  the  evidence,  and  such  as  in  the  graver  trans- 
. actions  of  life  would  cause  a  reasonable  and  prudent  man 
to  hesitate  and  pause." 

May  v.  The  People,  60  111.,  1 19. 
Miller  v.  The  People,  39  111.,  457. 
Connaghan  v.  The  People,  88  111.,  460. 

The  portion  of  the  instruction  complained  of  is  a  literal 
copy  of  the  language  used  by  the  court  in  the  Dunn  case, 
supra,  and  we  maintain  that  the  definition  of  the  term 
"  reasonable  doubt "  has  been  thus  given  and  affirmed  so 
often  by  this  court,  that  it  is  now  so  well  understood  as  to 
be  the  settled  and  unquestioned  rule  of  law. 

In  the  Dunn  case,  the  following  instruction  on  the  sub- 
ject of  reasonable  doubt  was  given: 

"That  the  guilt  of  defendant  must  be  proved  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt,  as  used  in  the  instructions  in  this  case, 
means  not  a  possible  doubt,  not  a  conjectural  doubt,  not 
an  imaginary  doubt,  not  a  doubt  of  the  absolute  certainty 
of  the  guilt  of  the  accused,  because  everything  relating 
to  human  affairs  and  depending  upon  moral  evidence  is 
open  to  conjectural  or  imaginary  doubt,  and  because  abso- 
lute certainty  is  not  required  by  law.  A  reasonable 
doubt  exists  in  that  state  of  the  case  which,  after  consid- 
ering and  comparing  all  the  evidence  in  the  case,  leaves 
the  minds  of  the  jury  in  that  condition  that  they  cannot 
say  they  feel  an  abiding  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the 
charge.  But  where  the  evidence  in  the  case  establishes 
the  truth  of  the  charge  to  a  reasonable  and  moral  cer- 
tainty, that  convinces  the  understanding  and  satisfies  the 
reason  and  judgment  of  the  jury  of  the  truth  of  the  charge, 


IOO 

then,  in  law,  there  exists  no  reasonable  doubt;"  and  while 

\. 

this  court  held  that  said  instruction  did  not  correctly  state 
the  law  on  the  subject  of  reasonable  doubt,  but  was  rather 
in  the  nature  of  an  argument,  this  error  was  held  not  to 
vitiate  the  verdict  of  the  jury,  and  the  judgment  was 
affirmed. 

It  will  be  borne  in  mind,  also,  that  the  jury  in  this  case, 
by  People's  instruction  number  ir,  had  already  been  ap- 
prised of  the  full  burden  of  proof  which  the  law. devolved 
upon  the  prosecution,  and  the  presumption  of  innocence 
with  which  it  clothes  the  accused,  and  cautioned  against 
the  conviction  of  an  innocent  person.  Said  instruction  is 
as  follows: 

"  The  rule  of  law  which  clothes  every  person  accused 
of  crime  with  the  presumption  of  innocence,  and  imposes 
upon  the  state  the  burden  of  establishing  his  guilt  beyond 
a  reasonable  doubt,  is  not  intended  to  aid  any  one  who  is 
in  fact  guilty  of  crime  to  escape,  but  is  a  humane  provision 
of  law  intended,  so  far  as  human  agencies  can,  to  guard 
against  the  danger  of  any  innocent  person  being  unjustly 
punished." 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  instructions  for  the  people, 
in  which  we  maintain  the  law  was  correctly  laid  down, 
the  jury  were  most  liberally  instructed  on  this  subject,  at 
the  instance  of  the  defense. 

On  the  part  of  the  defense  the  jury  were  told: 

"  The  law  presumes  the  defendants  innocent  of  the 
charge  in  the  indictment  until  the  jury  are  satisfied  by  the 
evidence,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  of  the  guilt  of  the 
defendants. 

"  If  a  reasonable  doubt  of  any  facts  necessary  to  con- 
vict the  accused  is  raised  in  the  minds  of  the  jury  by  the 
evidence  itself,  or  by  the  ingenuity  of  counsel  upon  any 
hypothesis  reasonably  consistent  with  the  evidence,  the 
doubt  is  decisive  in  favor  of  the  prisoners'  acquittal. 

"The  law  does   not  require  the   defendants   to   prove 


101 

themselves  innocent,  but  the  burden  of  proof  that  they 
are  guilty  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  is  upon  the  pros- 
ecution. 

"  It  is  incumbent  upon  the  prosecution  to  prove  beyond 
all  reasonable  doubt  every  material  allegation  in  the  indict- 
ment, and,  unless  that  has  been  done,  the  jury  should  find 
the  defendants  not  guilty. 

"  A  reasonable  doubt  is  that  state  of  mind  in  which 
the  jury,  after  considering  all  the  evidence,  cannot  say  tlu-v 
feel  an  abiding  faith,  amounting  to  a  moral  certainty,  from 
the  evidence  in  the  case,  that  the  defendants  are  guilty,  as 
charged  in  the  indictment." 

It  will  be  observed  from  the  foregoing  that  the  jury 
were  very  liberally  instructed  as  to  the  matter  of  reason- 
able doubt;  and  it  will  be  further  observed  that  the  jury 
are  referred  to  the  evidence  as  the  source  of  reasonable 
doubt,  but  in  no  instance  to  the  want  of  evidence.  In 
short,  the  theory  of  reasonable  doubt  as  embodied  in 
defendants'  instructions  is  in  close  and  substantial  accord 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  People's  instructions  on  the 
same  subject;  though  defendants'  instructions  go  much 
further  than  the  law  as  usually  laid  down  in  criminal  cases, 
and  allow  a  reasonable  doubt  to  be  raised  by  the  ingenu- 
ity of  counsel. 

'  INSTRUCTION  NUMBER  13. 

Objection  is  also  made  to  instruction  number  13  given 
on  behalf  of  the  people,  and  which  reads  as  follows: 

"  The  court  further  instructs  the  jury  as  a  matter  of 
law,  that  the  doubt  which  a  juror  is  allowed  to  retain  in 
his  own  mind,  and  under  the  influence  of  which  he  should 
frame  a  verdict  of  not  guilty,  must  always  be  a  reasonable 
one. 

"  A  doubt  produced  by  undue  sensibility  in  the  mind  of 
any  juror  in  view  of  the  consequences  of  his  verdict  is  not 
a  reasonable  doubt,  and  a  juror  is  not  allowed  to  create 


102 

sources  or  materials  of  doubt  by  resorting  tQ  trivial  and 
fanciful  suppositions  and  remote  conjectures  as  to  possi- 
ble states  of  fact  differing  from  that  established  by  the 
evidence. 

"  You  are  not  at  liberty  to  disbelieve  as  jurors,  if,  from 
the  evidence,  you  believe  as  men;  your  oath  imposes  on 
you  no  obligation  to  doubt  where  no  doubt  would  exist  if 
no  oath  had  been  administered." 

The  objection  to  this  instruction  is  peculiar  and  relates 
to  the  last  clause,  concerning  which  it  is  said,  "  that  it  per- 
mits the  jury  to  rind  a  verdict  against  the  plaintiffs  in  er- 
ror, upon  any  conviction  in  reference  to  the  issue  with 
which  they  enter  the  jury  box." 

Before  the  jurors  were  accepted  they  each  and  all 
swore  that  they  had  no  convictions  as  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  defendants,  and  they  all  further  swore  that 
they  would  fairly  and  impartially  try  the  cause  according 
to  the  law  and  the  evidence  and  a  true  verdict  render. 

By  no  fair  construction  of  this  instruction  are  they  told 
that  they  may  disregard  either  of  the  oaths  which  they 
had  taken.  They  are  told  that  as  jurors  they  can  believe 
from  evidence  alone;  that  if  as  men  they  would  believe 
from  the  evidence  in  this  case,  then  as  jurors  they  are  under 
no  obligation  to  doubt.  In  other  words,  that  acting  under 
the  obligation  of  their  oaths,  they  must,  in  considering  the 
evidence,  exercise  the  common  sense  with  which  nature 
had  endowed  them. 

Com.  v.  ffarman,  4  Penn.  State,  272. 

By  defendants'  instructions  the  jury  were  told: 

"  Your  personal  opinion  as  to  facts  not  proved  cannot 
be  the  basis  of  your  verdict,  but  you  must  form  your 
verdict  from  the  evidence  and  that  alone,  unaided  and 
uninfluenced  by  any  opinions  or  presumptions  not  founded 
upon  the  evidence." 

The  objection  to  this  instruction  13  can  be  found  only 
in  the  ingenuity  of  counsel. 

Ncvling  v.  Cow.,  98  Penn.  State,  334. 


103 


INSTRUCTION   NUMBER 

Complaint  is  also  made  of  instruction  number  13^,  be- 
cause, while  it  tells  the  jury  that  they  are  the  judges  of 
the  law  as  well  as  the  facts  in  the  case,  it  also  tells  them, 
in  substance,  that  they  have  the  right  to  disregard  the 
instructions  of  the  court,  if  they  choose  to  do  so;  but  in 
such  case  they  should  be  prepared  to  say  upon  their  oaths 
that  they  know  the  ^  law  better  than  the  court.  The 
instruction  complained  of  here  was  approved  by  this  court 
in  case  Schnicr  v.  The  People,  23  111.,  17,  and  the  prin- 
ciple therein  announced  has  been  affirmed  in  subsequent 

decisions. 

Fisher  v.  The  People,  23  111.,  283. 

In  case  Mullimx  v.  The  People,  76  111.,  211,  this  court 
said: 

"  It  is  further  insisted  that  the  court  erred  in  modifying 
the  instruction  of  plaintiff"  in  error.  It  was  this:  'The 
court  instructs  the  jury  for  the  defense,  that  the  jury  are 
the  sole  judges  of  the  law  as  well  as  the  facts  in  the  case,' 
to  which  the  court  added:  'But  the  jury  are  further 
instructed  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  jury  to  accept  and  act 
upon  the  law  as  laid  down  to  you  by  the  court,  unless 
you  can  say  upon  your  oaths  that  you  are  better  judges 
of  the  law  than  the  court;  and  if  you  can  say  upon  your 
oaths  that  you  are  better  judges  of  the  law  than  the  court, 
then  you  are  at  liberty  so  to  act.'  This  modification  was 
strictly  within  what  was  held  in  Fisher  v.  The  People,  23 
111.,  283,  and  so  long  as  the  statute  remains  as  it  now  is, 
we  regard  such  a  modification  to  such  an  instruction  as 
eminently  just  and  proper/' 

The  instruction,  as  modified  in  the  Mullini\  case,  was 
again  approved  by  this  court  in  case  Davison  v.  The 
People,  90  111.,  223. 


104 

"  The  office  of  an  instruction  is  to  inform  the  jury  what 
the  law  is  relating  to  the  case  in  hand." 

Lander  v.  7 he  People,  104  111.,  248. 

The  rule  of  law  embodied  in  the  instruction  complained 
of  has  been  thoroughly  settled  in  our  criminal  practice. 

The  intelligence  which  best  qualifies  a  man  for  service 
as  a  juror,  and  is  indispensable  to  the  proper  discharge  of 
his  duties,  will  readily  convince  the  average  citizen  that 
ordinarily  he  does  not  understand  the  law  better  than  the 
court.  The  law  requires  the  court  to  instruct  the  jury  as 
to  the  law,  and  this  requirement  is  wholly  idle  and  useless 
unless  there  is  also  implied,  on  the  part  of  the  jury,  the 
duty  to  accept  and  apply  the  law  as  given  to  them  by  the 
court  in  the  instructions.  If,  however,  in  any  case  the  jury 
are  prepared  to  say  on  their  oaths  that  they  know  the 
law  better  than  the  court,  they  may  do  so. 

We  are  aware  that  a  similar  instruction  was  not  upheld 
by  the  Supreme  court  of  the  State  of  Indiana  in  case 
Clemv.  Slate,  31  Ind.,  480,  but  it  was  condemned  there 
because  the  court  held  that  it  contravened  a  constitutional 
provision,  and  on  that  ground  alone.  As  there  is  no  such 
provision  in  the  constitution  of  this  state,  the  reasoning  of 
the  Indiana  court  does  not  apply. 

But  we  desire  also  to  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to 
the  fact  that  the  same  rule  embodied  in  the  instruction 
complained  of  is  embraced  in  the  second  instruction 
asked  and  given  for  defendants  in  this  case,  which  is  as 
follows: 

"  The  jury  have  the  right  to  disregard  the  instruction 
of  the  court  provided  they  can  say  upon  their  oaths  that 
they  believe  they  know  the  law  better  than  the  court." 


DEFENDANTS'  RKFUSRD  INSTRUCTIONS. 

It   is   first  urged   that  the  court   erred  in    refusing  to 
give  instruction  number  3  asked  by  the  defense. 

This  instruction  required  the  jury  to  find: 

1.  That  defendants  entered  into  an  illegal  conspiracy. 

2.  That  the  Haymarket  meeting  was  an  unlawful  as- 
sembly in  aid  of  such  conspiracy. 

3.  That  the  bomb  which  killed   Officer  Degan    was 
cast   by  a  member  of  the  conspiracy,  in  aid  of  the  com- 
mon  design;  or,   by  a   stranger  to  the   conspiracy,  aided 
and  advised  by  all  or  some  of  the  defendants;  and  if  they 
found  all  of  such   facts   affirmatively,  then  they  were  to 
be  instructed: 

"  But,  in  any  event,  should  you  find  such  A  conspiracy, 
from  the  evidence,  to  have  been  in  existence,  any  one  or 
more  of  these  defendants,  not  found,  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt  to  have  been  a  member  thereof,  and  who  is  or  are 
not  found,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  to  have  been 
present  at  the  Haymarket  meeting,  or  who,  if  present, 
did  not  knowingly  counsel,  aid,  or  abet  the  throwing  of 
the  bomb  by  which  Officer  Degan  lost  his  life,  such  de- 
fendant or  defendants  you  are  bound  to  acquit." 

We  do  not  see  how  it  can  be  seriously  urged  that  this 
instruction  should  have  been  given.  • 

It  is  in  violation  of  the  very  foundation  principle  upon 
which  accessoryship  before  the  fact  is  based. 

I.  If  the  conspiracy  existed,  and  the  bomb  by  which 
Officer  Degan  was  killed  was  thrown  in  pursuance  of 
said  conspiracy,  either  by  a  member  thereof,  or  by  a 
stranger,  advised  and  encouraged  thereto  by  a  member 
of  the  conspiracy,  in  pursuance  of  its  plans,  then  it  mat- 


io6 

ters  not  whether  the  Haymarket  meeting,  at  which  the 
bomb  was  thrown,  was,  -per  se,  a  lawful  or  an  unlawful 
assembly. 

II.  This  proposed  instruction  sought  to  tell  the  jury 
that  none  of  defendants  could  be  convicted  whom  the 
jury  did  not  believe  from  the  evidence,  beyond  a  reason- 
able doubt,  to  have  been  actually  present  at  the  Hay- 
market  meeting  and  actively  aiding,  counseling  or  abet- 
ting the  throwing  of  the  bomb.  In  this  it  attempted  to 
ignore  and  avoid  all  responsibility  on  the  part  of  all  the 
defendants  who  were  not  present  at  the  Haymarket  meet- 
ing, but  "  who,  not  being  present,  aiding,  abetting  or  as- 
"  sisting,  hath  advised,  encouraged,  aided,  or  abetted  the 
"  perpetration  of  the  crime." 

In  Brcnnan  v.  The  People,  15  111.,  517,  this  court  said: 

"The  twentieth  instruction  was  also  erroneous.  It  re- 
quired the  jury  to  acquit  the  prisoners,  if  they  were  not 
present  when  the  murder  was  committed,  although  they 
may  have  advised  and  encouraged  it  to  be  done.  The 
law  is  clearly  otherwise.  One  who  counsels  or  procures 
another  to  commit  a  crime,  although  he  may  be  absent 
when  the  crime  is  done,  is  equally  guilty  with  the  one 
perpetrating  it.  By  the  express  provision  of  our  statute, 
he  is  deemed  to  be  a  principal  offender  and  may  be  in- 
dicted and  punished  as  such." 

Objection  is  also  made  to  the  action  of  the  court  in  re- 
fusing to  give  instruction  8  asked  by  the  defense. 

"  If  the  jury  believe  from  the  evidence  that  the  de- 
fendants, or  any  one  of  them,  entered  into  a  conspiracy 
to  bring  about  a  change  of  government  for  the  ameliora- 
tion of  the  condition  of  the  working  classes,  by  peaceful 
means  if  possible,  but  if  necessary,  to  resort  to  force  for 
that  purpose,  and  that  in  addition  thereto,  in  pursuance  of 
that  object,  the  Haymarket  meeting  was  assembled  by 
such  conspirator  or  conspirators,  to  discuss  the  best  means 


107 

to  right  the  grievances  of  the  working  classes,  without  any 
intention  of  doing  any  unlawful  act  on  that  occasion,  and 
while  so  assembled  the  bomb  by  which  Officer  Degan 
lost  his  life  was  thrown  by  a  person  outside  of  said  con- 
spiracy, and  without  the  knowledge  and  approval  of  the 
defendant  or  defendants,  so  found  to  have  entered  into 
said  conspiracy,  then  and  in  that  case  the  court  instructs 
the  jury  that  they  are  bound  to  acquit  the  defendants." 

We  submit,  from  the  hypothesis  contained  in  this  in- 
struction, that  the  Haymarket  meeting  was  an  unlawful 
assemblage,  because  called  for  an  unlawful  purpose.  It 
is  herein  admitted  that  the  object  of  the  conspiracy  was 
to  bring  about  a  change  of  government,  by  peaceable 
means  if  possible,  but  if  necessary,  to  resort  to  force  for 
that  purpose.  This  clearlv  made  the  entire  conspiracy 
unlawful.  A  conspiracy  to  subvert  the  government  by 
force  is  essentially  a  conspiracy  for  an  unlawful  purpose, 
and  the  fact  that  the  conspirators  do  not  intend  to  resort 
to  force  unless  in  their  judgment  such  resort  to  force  is 
necessary,  does  not  relieve  the  conspiracy  of  the  unlaw- 
ful taint.  Any  meeting  called  by  the  members  of  such 
conspiracy  in  pursuance  of  the  plans  and  in  furtherance 
of  the  objects  thereof  would  be  poisoned  by  the  original 
wicked  purpose,  and  would  be  an  unlawful  assembly,  not- 
withstanding the  conspirators  do  not  contemplate  the  use 
of  force  at  such  meeting. 

But  it  is  premised  that  the  object  of  the  change  of  gov- 
ernment, peaceably  or  forcibly,  was  "  the  amelioration 
'•  of  the  condition  of  the  vvorkingmen,"  and  the  purpose 
of  assembling  the  Haymarket  meeting,  "  in  pursuance  of 
"  the  objects  of  the  conspiracy,"  was  "  to  discuss  the  hc$t 
•'  means  to  right  the  grievances  of  the  working  classes." 

So  it  still   appears   that   the   object  of  the  Haymarket 


io8 

meeting  was   in   thorough  keeping  with,  and   in  further- 
ance of  the  purposes  of  the  conspiracy. 

If,  then,  such  conspiracy  existed,  and  the  defendants 
were  members  thereof,  and  the  Haymarket  meeting  was 
called  by  members  of  the  conspiracy  and  in  furtherance 
of  its  objects,  the  law  will  not  measure  the  responsibility 
of  defendants  for  any  crime  committed  at  such  meeting, 
by  the  rule  announced  in  this  instruction.  Even  though 
the  bomb  which  killed  Officer  Degan  was  thrown  by  a 
person  outside  of  said  conspiracy,  and  without  the  knowl- 
edge and  approval  of  the  defendant  or  defendants,  that 
would  not  entitle  the  defendants  to  acquittal,  if  the  jury 
believe  from  the  evidence,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt, 
that  the  bomb  was  thrown  through  the  aid  and  encourage- 
ment of  any  of  the  conspirators,  and  in  pursuance  of  the 
purposes  and  teachings  of  such  conspiracy.  We  maintain 
that  the  rule  by  which  defendants  sought  to  limit  their 
responsibility,  as  set  forth  in  this  instruction,  was  too  nar 
row,  and  the  instruction  was  therefore  properly  refused 
The  following  instruction  given  for  defendants  states  cor- 
rectly the  rule  applicable  to  the  hypothesis  contained  in 
this  instruction: 

"  The  bomb  might  have  been  thrown  by  some  one  un- 
familiar with  and  unprompted  by  the  teachings  of  the  de- 
fendants or  any  of  them.  Before  defendants  can  be  held 
liable  therefor,  the  evidence  must  satisfy  you  beyond  all  rea- 
sonable doubt  that  the  person  throwing  said  bomb  was 
acting  as  the  result  of  the  teaching  or  encouragement  of 
defendants  or  some  of  them." 

Instruction  number  9,  of  the  refusal  to  give  which  com- 
plaint is  made,  was,  as  we  contend,  erroneous,  and  there- 
fore properly  refused. 

The  concluding  portion  of  said  instruction  is  as  follows: 


109 

"  Or  if  you  should  find  that  it  was  thrown  bv  a  person, 
not  proved  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  to  have  been  a 
member  of  said  conspiracy,  then  you  must  find  that  these 
defendants  knowingly  aided  and  abetted  or  advised  said 
bomb-thrower  to  do  the  act,  otherwise  you  are  bound  to 
acquit  them." 

On  the  same  grounds  urged  against  instruction  8,  supra. 
namely,  that  it  attempted  to  improperly  limit  the  respon- 
sibility of  defendants,  we  contend  that  this  instruction  was 
wrong,  and  therefore  properly  refused.  Whatever  was 
meritorious  in  the  instruction  was  included  in  the  follow- 
ing, given  for  defense: 

"Unless  the  evidence  proves  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt  that  either  some  of  defendants  threw  said  bomb,  or 
that  the  person  who  threw  it  acted  under  the  advice  and 
procurement  of  defendants  or  some  of  them,  the  defend- 
ants should  be  acquitted." 

Instruction  number  n,  which  was  refused,  sought  to 
tell  the  jury  that  unless  they  believed,  from  the  evidence, 
that  a  conspiracy  existed,  of  which  defendants  or  some  of 
them  were  parties,  and  that  the  act  resulting  in  the  death 
of  Degan  was  done  by  a  member  of  the  conspiracy,  and 
in  pursuance  of  the  common  design,  they  must  acquit  the 
defendants,  unless  they  believe  from  the  evidence,  that 
defendants,  or  some  of  them,  personally  committed  the 
act,  or  aided,  abetted,  or  advised  it,  or,  not  being  present, 
had  advised,  aided,  encouraged,  or  abetted  the  act. 

This  instruction  also  ignores  the  responsibility  of  de- 
fendants for  an  act  done  in  pursuance  of  the  plans  and 
purposes  of  the  conspiracy,  where  the  principal  actor 
was  not  a  member  of  the  conspiracy,  and  it  was  therefore 
too  narrow. 

Defendants'  instruction  number  18,  which  was  refused, 
was  as  follows: 


no 

"  Although  certain  of  the  defendants  may  have  advised 
the  use  of  force,  in  opposition  to  the  legally  "constituted 
authorities,  or  the  overthrow  of  the  laws  of  the  land, 
yet,  unless  the  jury  can  find  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt 
that  they  specifically  threw  the  bomb  which  killed  Officer 
Degan,  or  aided,  advised,  counseled,  assisted  or  encouraged 
said  act  or  the  doing  of  some  illegal  act,  or  the  accom- 
plishment of  some  act  by  illegal  means,  in  the  furtherance 
of  which  said  bomb  was  thrown,  you  should  return  said 
defendants  not  guilty." 

We  insist  that  this  instruction  was  objectionable,  be- 
cause it  wholly  ignored  the  responsibility  of  defendants  as 
members  of  the  conspiracy,  if  the  jury  believed  from  the 
evidence  that  the  existence  of  the  conspiracy  was  proved; 
and  it  sought  to  limit  the  right  of  the  jury  to  convict  to 
proof  of  individual  advice  to  commit  crime.  If  the  con- 
spiracy existed,  and  if  the  defendants  were  members 
thereof,  and  if,  in  furtherance  of  the  purposes  of  the  con- 
spiracy, any  conspirator,  whether  defendant  or  not,  aided, 
advised'  or  encouraged  the  throwing  of  the  bomb  whereby 
Officer  Degan  was  killed,  then,  as  we  insist,  the  defend- 
ants are  guilty.  This  element  of  guilt  was  entirely 
omitted  from  this  instruction,  and  it  directed  an  acquittal, 
unless  the  jury  found  the  elements  of  guilt  just  as  recited 
in  the  instruction,  no  matter  what  other  inculpatory 
proof  there  might  be,  or  how  convincing  its  character. 

Complaint  is  also  made  on  account  of  the  refusal  of  the 
court  to  give  instruction  No.  i,  which  stated  that  "  it  can- 
"•  not  be  material  in  this  case  that  defendants,  or  some  of 
"  them,  are  or  may  be  socialists,  anarchists  or  commun- 
"  ists." 

The  propriety  of  this  instruction  must  depend  wholly 
on  the  evidence.  If  the  evidence  showed  or  tended  to 
show  that  anarchism,  communism  or  socialism  were  ele- 
ments of  or  essential  parts  of  the  conspiracy,  having  for 


Ill 

their  purposes  the  overthrow  of  the  law  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  lawful  authorities  by  force;  if  it  showed,  or 
tended  to  show,  that  these  classes  or  organizations  were 
adjuncts  or  agencies  of  the  conspiracy,  and  that  they 
were  engaged  in  propagating  the  teachings  and  promot- 
ing the  designs  and  purposes  of  the  conspiracy,  then  we 
submit  that  it  was  highly  .material  that  defendants  be- 
longed to  or  were  connected  with  any  of  said  designated 
classes  or  organizations,  and  in  such  case  said  instruction 
was  highly  improper. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  evidence  showed  nothing  of 
the  character  above  suggested,  then  the  instruction 
was  wholly  unusual,  and  not  relevant  to  anything  that 
could  be  supposed  to  raise  either  a  presumption  of 
guilt,  or  arouse  an  element  of  prejudice,  and  was,  there- 
fore, properly  refused. 

Instruction  No.  13,  which  was  also  refused,  was,  we 
think,  so  clearly  improper  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  dis- 
cuss it  at  length. 

INSTRUCTION  BY  THE  COURT  SUA  MOTU. 

Serious  complaint  is  made  of  the  instruction  given  by 
the  court  of  its  own  motion  after  the  reading  of  the  in- 
structions given  at  the  request  of  the  prosecution  and  de- 
fense respectively.  Of  the  right  of  the  court  to  give  an 
instruction  in  such  case  there  can  be  no  doubt.  While  it 
is  the  general  practice  in  this  state  for  counsel  for  the  re- 
spective sides  to  write  and  ask  the  court  to  give  the  in- 
structions to  the  jury,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  court, 
if  it  so  choose,  may  reject  all  instructions  offered  by  coun- 
sel, and,  of  its  own  motion,  charge  the  jury  fully  as  to  the 
law,  the  statute  only  requiring  that  such  instructions  shall 


112 

be  in  writing.  In  Vanlatidinghani  v.  Ilnston,  4  Gilm.,  125, 
it  was  held  that  a  judge  may  give  instructions  'of  his  own 
motion,  or  modify  offered  instructions;  and  our  present 
practice  act,  Rev.  Stat.,  chapter  no,  section  53,  clearly 
contemplates  not  only  the  right  of  the  court  to  modify  or 
qualify  instructions  after  they  have  been  given,  but  also 
that  the  court  may  explain  instructions  already  given,  pro- 
vided, always,  that  such  modifications,  qualifications  and 
explanations  shall  be  in  writing. 

It  is  clear,  then,  since  our  statute  recognizes  the  right  of 
the  court  to  modify,  qualify  or  explain  an  instruction 
already  given,  that  such  modifying,  qualifying  or  explain- 
ing would  not  be  treated  or  regarded  as  superseding  or 
withdrawing  any  of  the  instructions  already  given  from 
the  jury,  unless  the  intention  to  do  so  was  stated  in  the 
court's  instruction.  That  such  was  not  the  intention  of  the 
court  in  this  case  is  clearly  manifest  from  the  language 
used. 

The  instruction  first  directs  the  careful  attention  of  the 
jury  to  all  the  instructions,  to  the  end  that  all  seeming  dis- 
crepancies and  contradictions  may  be  reconciled.  It 
then  carefully  and,  as  we  maintain,  correctly  states  the 
law  under  which  defendants  may  be  convicted  of  murder 
if  the  proof  justifies  it;  the  rule  as  to  reasona  le  doubt  is 
again  properly  stated;  the  jury  are  told  that  "  if  a  con- 
"  spiracy  having  violence  and  murder  as  its  object  is  fully 
"proved,  then  the  acts  and  declarations  of  each  conspirator 
"  in  furtherance  of  the  conspiracy  are  the  acts  and  declara- 
"  tions  of  each  one  of  the  conspirators,"  and  that  the  jury 
must  determine  what  are  the  facts  and  the  truth  from  the 
evidence  alone.  The  instruction  commends  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  jury  the  case  of  each  defendant,  with  the 
same  care  and  scrutiny  as  if  he  alone  were  on  trial. 


H3 

And  finally,  all  the  instructions  are  referred  to  the  evi- 
dence, and  the  jury  are  particularly  cautioned  to  disregard 
all  expressions  in  any  of  the  instructions  which  may  as- 
sume or  seem  to  assume  the  existence  of  any  fact  not 
clearly  established  by  the  evidence,  or  that  any  fact  in  is- 
sue has  been  proved,  and  that  the  evidence  alone  must  be 
looked  to  to  determine  the  facts. 

All  this  we  maintain  was  essentially  proper  and  wise, 
and  there  is  no  part  of  this  instruction  which  does  not 
better  guard  the  rights  of  defendants  and  make  them  less 
liable  to  an  improper  conviction.  This  instruction  did  not 
pretend  to  summarize  or  epitomize  all  the  instructions 
which  had  been  given.  It  was  intended  as  explanatory, 
and  to  prevent  any  misapprehension  of  the  law  as  already 
embodied  in  previous  instructions. 


INSTRUCTION  AS  TO  THE  FORM  OF  THE  VERDICT  (i  A., 

24; 


The  objection  raised  to  the  instructions  given  as  to  the 
form  of  the  verdict  is  completely  answered  by  this  court 
in  the  case  of  Dunn  v.  People,  109  111.,  646. 

The  indictment  in  that  case  charged  the  defendant  with 
an  assault  with  intent  to  commit  murder. 

The  court  say:  "  The  tenth  and  last  instruction  given 
"  for  the  people  merely  directs  the  jury  as  to  the  form  of 
"  the  verdict.  But  it  is  said  that  the  direction  to  fix  the 
"  term  defendant  should  serve  in  the  penitentiary,  if  found 
"  guilty,  ignored  their  right  to  find  the  defendant  guilty 
"  of  the  lesser  offense,  and  hence  was  erroneous.  We 
"  do  not  concur  in  this  view,  but  if  counsel  for  defendant 
"  are  correct,  //  wisfor  (hem  to  prepare  an  instruction  in- 


':  forming  the  jury  that  they  should  bring  i,n  a  verdict, 
"  only  if  they  find,  from  the  evidence,  that  the  defendant 
"  was  guilty  of  the  lesser  offense,  an  assault  with  a 
"  deadly  weapon,  and  as  they  did  not  ask  for  an  instruc- 
"  tion  of  that  character,  they  are  in  no  position  to  com- 
"  plain." 

In  concluding  this  branch  of  the  brief,  we  submit  that, 
when  all  the  instructions  which  were  given  in  this  case 
and  by  which  the  jury  were  guided  in  arriving  at  a  ver- 
dict are  considered  together,  it  will  be  found  that  the  law 
applicable  to  this  case  was  fairly  and  correctly  stated  to 
the  jury,  and  that  no  rule  of  law  is  expressed  therein 
which  is  improperly  prejudicial  to  plaintiffs  in  error.  We 
maintain  that  an  examination  of  the  record  will'show  evi- 

J 

dence  therein  supporting  every  hypothesis  embraced  in 
any  of  the  instructions,  and  that  the  instructions  correctly 
state  the  law  applicable  to  the  several  hypotheses.  If  this 
is  true,  then  such  instructions,  so  based  on  the  evidence 
and  staling  the  law  relating  thereto,  were  properly  given, 
and  plaintiffs  in  error  cannot  complain. 

The  instructions  properly  impose  upon  the  prosecution 
the  burden  of  proving  every  material  fact  necessary  to 
establish  the  guilt  of  each  and  every  one  of  the  defend- 
ants, beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  and  caution  the  jury 
that  they  must  look  to  the  evidence  alone  for  proof  of 
guilt. 

The  presumption  of  innocence  is  strongly  and  clearly 
stated;  and  the  jury  are  told  that  they  are  the  judges  of 
the  law  as  well  as  the  facts. 

We  believe  that  a  fair  consideration  of  the  instructions, 
considered  as  a  series,  will  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
jury  were  properly  instructed,  and  that  all  the  rights  of 
plaintiffs  in  error  were  carefully  protected  thereby. 


VI. 
THE  JURY. 

FIRST:  Manifestly,  from  the  argument  of  counsel,  an 
important  question  is  the  impaneling  of  the  jury — their 
competency,  the  requirements  of  the  statute  and  the  con- 
stitution, counsel  for  defendants  claiming  as  error  in  the 
premises,  that  the  law  has  been  violated  in  the  selection 
of  the  jury  which  tried  this  case  in  the  lower  court. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  discussion  of  the  principles  of 
law  involved  in  the  subject  of  impaneling  of  the  jury,  it 
would  be  well  to  take  into  consideration  some  facts  which 
are  undisputed — admitted. 

There  were  called  into  the  jury-box  and  sworn  to 
answer  questions  981  men.  Of  these,  twelve  were 
accepted  and  sworn.  The  defendants  challenged  per- 
emptorilly  160.  The  state  challenged  peremptorily  52- 
There  were  excused  upon  challenge  for  cause  757.  About 
four  weeks  was  consumed  in  examining  these  as  to  their 
qualifications. 

The  nature,  character  and  quality  of  the  jury  which 
tried  this  case  can  be  clearly  determined  by  reading  the 
answers  to  questions  propounded  to  the  twelve  selected. 
A  careful  study  of  the  examination  of  the  twelve,  respect- 
ively, will,  in  our  opinion,  brush  away  any  possible  ob- 
jection interposed  in  impaneling  the  juror.  A  fair,  full 
and  non-partisan  abstract  of  the  questions  and  answers 
of  the  jury  selected,  respectively,  is  as  follows: 

Juror  JAMES  II.  COM-:  (Vol.  A,  pp.  172,  250  and  370) 
lives  at  987  Lawndale  avenue,  Chicago,  Illinois;  lived  in 


n6 

Chicago  seven  years;  was  born  at  Utica,%New  York; 
fifty  years  of  age;  was  in  the  Federal  army  from  1861  to 
October,  1865;  captain  of  the  Forty-first  Ohio;  served  as 
major;  enlisted  in  Ohio;  has  been  in  the  railroad  business, 
and  in  the  insurance  business  as  book-keeper;  had  heard 
about  the  Haymarket  meeting;  read  the  newspaper  ac- 
counts from  day  to  day  from  that  time  to  the  impaneling 
of  the  jury;  did  not  believe  all  he  read  in  the  newspapers; 
did  not  believe  enough  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  any  of  the  defendants; 
has  very  slight  knowledge  of  the  purposes  or  objects  of 
communists,  "anarchists  or  socialists;  has  a  prejudice 
against  secret  societies,  and,  so  far  as  he  understands  the 
objects  and  purposes  of  communists,  anarchists  and 
socialists,  has  a  prejudice  against  such  classes,  be- 
cause he  has  a  prejudice  against  all  organizations 
that  violate  the  law,  but  such  prejudice  is  not  such 
as  would  prevent  him  rendering  a  fair  and  im- 
partial verdict  if  taken  as  a  juror  in  this  case ;  the  verdict 
would  be  rendered  the  same  as  against  any  man,  whether 
communist,  socialist  or  anarchist,  or  not;  could  lay  aside 
the  prejudice  against  any  class  and  return  a  verdict  accord- 
ing to  the  evidence  introduced  in  court;  could  lay  aside 
any  unfavorable  opinions  which  he  had  formed  as  to  any 
class,  and  be  guided  entirely  and  exclusively  by  the  testi- 
mony from  the  witnesses  upon  the  stand  in  court,  under 
the  instructions  of  his  Honor,  the  judge;  knows  none  of 
the  police  force  of  the  city  of  Chicago;  is  acquainted  with 
none  of  the  police  force  who  were  present  at  the  Hay- 
market  square ;  has  had  conversations  about  the  occurrences 
at  the  Haymarket, but  not  sufficient  to  form  an  opinion;  ob- 
tained what  little  information  he  had  about  the  Haymarket 
matter  from  the  "  News,"  the  "  Herald "  and  the 


"Tribune'*;  does  not  know  any  of  the  defendants,  and 
never  saw  any  of  them  before  to  his  knowledge;  is  a 
member  of  the  Episcopal  church;  has  a  family  consisting 
of  a  wife  and  four  children. 

This  juror  (Cole)  was  accepted  by  the  defense,  with- 
out objection,  and  turned  over  to  the  state  for  examina- 
tion; whereupon  he  said,  in  answer  to  questions  put  to 
him  by  the  state's  attorney,  that  if  he  was  taken  as  a 
juror  in  this  case  he  would  determine  the  innocence  or 
guilt  of  the  defendants,  or  any  of  them,  upon  the  proof 
presented  to  him  in  court,  regardless  of  any  opinion,  any 
influence  or  anything  except  the  evidence  itself,  and  under 
the  instructions  of  the  court. 

Juror  S.  G.  RANDALL  (B,  25),  upon  examination  by 
the  defendants,  stated  that  he  lived  at  42  LaSalle  street, 
Chicago;  was  twenty-three  years  of  age;  born  in  Erie, 
Pennsylvania;  a  single  man;  was  working  in  ^the  seed 
store  of  J.  C.  Vaughan,  in  Chicago;  had  lived  in  Chi- 
cago about  two  years  and  a  half;  was  a  laboring  man. 
brought  up  on  a  farm;  at  one  time  ran  a  milk  wagon  in 
the  city  of  Chicago,  and  am  at  present  working  for 
Mr.  Vaughan;  has  very  little  time  to  read  much; 
the  Haymarket  matter  was  not  discussed  in  his  hearing, 
and  from  all  information  that  he  had  received  from  all 
sources  had  formed  no  opinion  whatever  as  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  defendants,  or  any  of  them;  is  ac- 
quainted with  no  member  of  the  police  force  of  the  city 
of  Chicago;  knew  none  of  those  who  were  present  at 
the  Haymarket  meeting  on  May  4th;  had  no  conversa- 
tion with  anybody  that  undertook  to  detail  the  facts  as 
thev  occurred  there;  thinks  he  read,  what  little  time  he 
had,  of  the  Haymarket  matter  in  the  "Tribune";  does 
not  remember  of  reading  of  the  arrest  of  defendants,  or 


n8 

any  of  them;  is  acquainted  with  none  of  the^  defendants; 
knows  nothing  about  the  principles  of  socialism,  com- 
munism or  anarchism;  has  no  acquaintance  with  any  of 
the  defendants,  and  has  no  prejudice  against  any  of  the 
classes  known  as  socialists,  communists  or  anarchists;  has 
no  bias  or  prejudice  in  this  case,  and  knows  of  no  reason 
why  he  could  not  listen  to  the  testimony  and  return  a  fair 
and  impartial  verdict  in  this  case,  under  the  evidence  and 
the  law,  as  given  by  the  court;  is  not  a  member  of  any 
trades  union  or  labor  union. 

This  juror,  after  examination  by  the  defense,  was  ac- 
cepted, and,  without  objection,  turned  over  to  the  prose- 
*  cution  for  further  examination;  whereupon  he  again 
repeated  that  if  he  was  taken  and  sworn  as  a  juror  in 
this  case  he  would  determine  the  innocence  or  guilt  of 
the  defendants  upon  the'  proof  presented  to  him  in  court, 
regardless  of  everything  else;  that  he'had  no  prejudice  or 
bias  one  way  or  the  other,  and  that  he  believed  he  could 
render  an  impartial  and  fair  verdict  in  this  case  and  try 
the  same  fairly  and  impartially;  has  had  no  opinion  and 
has  expressed  none. 

Juror  THEODORE  DENKER  (B,  125),  being  first  ex- 
amined by  the  defendants'  counsel  as  to  his  qualifica- 
tions for  a  juror  in  this  case,  said  that  he  lived  with  his 
mother  at  Woodlawn  Park,  in  the  town  of  Hyde  Park, 
Cook  county;  was  born  in  Minnesota;  was  twenty-seven 
years  of  age,  and  married;  had  lived  in  Chicago  twentv- 
five. years;  is  shipping-clerk  for  Henry  W.  King  &  Co., 
where  he  has  been  engaged  a  little  over  two  years;  has 
formed  an  opinion  upon  the  question  of  the  defendants' 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  charge  of  murder,  or  some  of 
them:  has  expressed  that  opinion:  still  entertained  it. 


Whereupon  the  following  question  was  propounded  to 
him  by  defendants'  counseh 

"  Q.  Is  that  opinion  such  as  would  prevent  you  from 
rendering  an  impartial  verdict  in  the  case,  sitting  as  a 
juror,  under  the  testimony  and  the  law? 

"  A..     I  think  it  is." 

Upon  this  answer  and  the  foregoing,  the  defendants' 
counsel  challenged  said  juror  for  cause,  and  then  the 
prosecution  asked  the  following  questions,  to  which  the 
following  answers  were  given: 

"  If  you  were  taken  and  sworn  as  a  juror  in  the  case, 
can't  you  determine  the  innocence  or  guilt  of  the  defend- 
ants upon  the  proof  that  is  presented  to  you  here  in  court, 
regardless  of  your  having  that  prejudice  or  opinion? 

11  A.     I  think  I  could. 

"  Q.  You  could  determine  their  guilt  or  innocence 
upon  the  proof  presented  to  you  here  in  court,  regardless 
of  your  opinion,  regardless  of  your  prejudice  and  regard- 
less of  what  you  have  read? 

«  A.     Yes"." 

The  COURT  then  asked  this  question: 

"  Q.  Do  you  believe  that  you  can  fairly  and  impar- 
tially try  the  case  and  render  an  impartial  verdict  upon 
the  evidence  as  it  may  be  presented  here,  and  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  court? 

"  A.     Yes,  I  think  I  could." 

The  challenge  for  cause  interposed  was  overruled  by 
the  court,  and  the  defendants'  counsel  proceeded  with  his 
inquiries. 

Mr.  Denker  said  that  he  did  not  believe  everything  that 
he  read  in  the  newspapers;  thinks  he  believed  enough  to 
form  an  opinion,  and  the  opinion  that  he  formed  was  en- 
tirely from  what  he  read  in  the  newspapers;  he  expressed 
such  opinions  to  others  in  conversation,  but  never  ex- 
pressed an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  truth  of  the  news- 


120 

paper  account  of  the  Hay  market  matter;  --is  acquainted 
with  no  member  of  the  police  force  who  was  at  the  Hay- 
market  meeting;  has  had  no  conversation  with  any  per- 
son that  undertook  to  detail  the  facts  as  they  occurred  at 
the  Haymarket  square,  or  who  claimed  that  they  had 
been  there;  does  not  know  what  the  principles  of  anarch- 
ism are;  from  what  he  does  know  of  socialism  thinks 
he  has  a  slight  prejudice  against  it,  but  said  again,  that, 
notwithstanding  his  opinion  formed  from  newspaper  read- 
ing, he  is  conscious  of  the  fact  that  he  could  try  this  case 
and  settle  it  upon  the  testimony  introduced  in  court,  and 
not  be  controlled  or  governed  by  any  impression  that  he 
might  have  had  heretofore,  and  would  be  governed  by 
the  law  as  given  by  the  court. 

Counsel  for  the  defense  asked  this  question: 

"  Q.  I  will  ask  you  whether,  acting  as  juror  here,  you 
would  feel  in  any  way  bound  or  governed  by  the  judg- 
ment that  you  had  expressed  on  the  same  question  to  others 
before  you  were  taken  as  a  juror?  Do  you  understand 
that? 

"  A.     I  don't  think  I  would. 

"  Q.  That  is,  you  have  now  made  up  your  mind,  or 
at  least  you  have  formed  an  opinion ;  you  have  expressed 
that  freely  to  others.  Now,  the  question  is,  whether,  when 
you  listened  to  the  testimony,  you  would  have  in  your  mind 
the  expression  that  you  had  given  to  others,  and  have  to 
guard  against  that  and  be  controlled  by  it  in  any  wav? 

"  A.  No  sir,  I  don't  think  I  would.  I  think  I  could 
try  the  case  from  the  testimony  regardless  of  this. 

"  Q.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  you  believe  you 
can  entirely  lay  to  one  side  the  opinion  which  you  have 
formed;  it  would  require  no  circumstances  or  evidence  to 
overcome  it  if  you  were  accepted  as  a  juryman? 

"  A.  I  think  I  could  lay  aside  that  opinion  that  I  have 
formed. 

"  Q.     You  believe  you  could? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Q.     That  is  your  honest  judgment? 

«  A.     Yes." 


tit 

Counsel  for  defense,  without  further  objection  than  that 
above  designated,  accepted  juror  Denker  and  turned  him 
over  to  the  state  for  further  examination,  when  he  said 
that  he  had  no  acquaintance  with  any  of  the  defendants; 
never  saw  any  of  the  defendants  before;  that  if  taken  as 
a  juror  in  this  case  he  believed  he  could  determine  the 
innocence  or  guilt  of  the  defendants  upon  the  proof  pre- 
sented to  him  in  court,  under  the  instruction  of  the  court, 
regardless  of  everything  else,  and  that  he  knew  of  no 
prejudice  or  bias  that  would  interfere  with  his  duties  as  a 
juror. 

Juror  C.  B.  TODD  (B,  297),  upon  examination  by]  the 
defendants,  said  that  he  lived  at  1,013  West  Polk  street, 
in  the  city  of  Chicago;  was  in  the  clothing  business  as 
salesman  for  the  Putnam  clothing  house,  and  has  lived 
in  Chicago  about  four  years;  was  born  in  New  York 
State;  is  forty-seven  years  of  age;  has  a  wife  and  family; 
served  in  the  Federal  army  during  the  rebellion,  and 
thereafter  moved  to  Minnesota;  had  read  accounts  pub- 
lished in  the  papers  of  the  Hay  market  meeting;  had 
conversation  in  regard  to  the  same;  thinks  he  has  formed 
an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  some  of  the  de- 
fendants; does  not  usually  make  up  his  mind  as  to  the 
absolute  truth  of  a  matter  because  he  reads  it  in  the 
newspapers;  such  opinion  as  he  has  is  not  a  firm  opinion; 
there  is  nothing  in  his  mind  that  would  require  circum- 
stances to  overcome  before  he  would  be  unbiased;  could 
listen  to  the  testimony  and  be  governed  and  guided 
solely  by  the  evidence  and  the  charge  of  the  court,  ir- 
respective of  any  opinion  which  he  formed,  and  that  his 
mind  is  clear  to  act  upon  the  testimony  alone;  knows 
nothing  about  the  teachings  of  the  class  known  as 
socialists,  communists  or  anarchists,  except  what  he  has 


122 

read  at  different  times  in  the  newspapers,  and  has  no 
prejudice  against  this  class  of  people,  bbt  believes 
them  to  be  advanced  thinkers,  but  has  no  prejudice 
against  them;  he  thinks  of  them  as  advanced  thinkers, 
but  has  no  prejudice;  is  not  acquainted  with  the  police 
force  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  except  two,  with  whom  he 
has  a  passing  acquaintance;  has  had  no  conversation  with 
either  of  such  two  since  the  Haymarket  meeting,  and  has 
had  no.  talk  with  either  of  them,  nor  with  any  policeman, 
about  the  Haymarket  meeting;  has  talked  with  no  one 
who  was  personally  present  at  the  Haymarket  meeting  or 
professed  to  know  himself  what  took  place  there,  and 
what  knowledge  he  has  of  such  meeting  is  obtained  from 
reading  and  from  talking  with  others,  who  also  obtained 
their  information  from  the  newspapers;  presumes  that  he 
has  expressed  such  opinion  as  he  had,  but  such  opinion  is 
not  a  decided  one,  and  is  conscious  of  no  reason  why  he 
could  not  determine  this  case  purely,  solely  and  entirely 
upon  the  evidence  that  is  introduced  upon  the  trial  and  the 
charge  of 'the  court;  knows  of  no  existing  cause,  no  prej- 
udice, no  bias  or  anything  which  would  prevent  him  act- 
ing upon  the  sworn  testimony  alone;  has  no  prejudice 
against  trades  unions  or  labor  unions  or  any  individual 
who  organizes  such,  and  has  no  prejudice  against  the 
organization  of  any  class  for  their  own  protection  and  ad- 
vancement. 

Juror  Todd  was  accepted  by  the  defense,  without  ob- 
jection, and  turned  over  to  the  state  for  further  examina- 
tion; whereupon  he  further  said  that  he  knew  of  no  rea- 
son why  he  could  not  try  this  case  fairly  and  impartially 
upon  the  proof  presented  to  him  in  court,  regardless  of 
everything  else,  and  upon  such  proof  alone  determine  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  any  or  all  of  the  defendants-;  and  re- 


123 

gardless  of  any  opinion  that  he  had  formed  or  that  he  may 
have  had,  he  thought  he  could  determine  the  innocence  or 
guilt  of  the  defendants  upon  the  proof  presented  to  him  in 
court,  under  the  instructions  of  the  court;  knows  none  of 
the  defendants;  has  never  seen  them  before  to  his  knowl- 
edge. 

Juror  FRANK  S.  OSBORN  (C,  291,  456),  upon  examina- 
tion by  the  defendants,  said  that  he  lived  at  124  Dearborn 
avenue,  city  of  Chicago;  was  a  salesman  in  Marshall 
Field  &  Co.'s  store;  had  read  and  heard  about  the  Hay- 
market  trouble,  and  from  what  he  had  heard  and  read  did 
not  form  any  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  any 
of  the  defendants;  read  of  the  Haymarket  matter  first  on 
the  morning  of  the  5th  day  of  May;  thinks  that  perhaps 
in  §uch  accounts  read  by  him,  the  name  of  some  of  the 
defendants  was  mentioned,  but  is  not  certain;  believes  that 
newspaper  reports  are  a  good  deal  colored;  does  not  think 
that  he  read  the  verdict  of  the  coroner's  jury,  but  may 
have  read  it;  did  not  read  the  grand  jury  proceedings,  nor 
the  reports  thereof  in  the  public  press,  but  presumes, 
from  the  fact  that  he  reads  newspapers,  that  he  must 
have  read  the  result  of  the  grand  jury  investigation; 
could  not  state  positively;  formed  no  opinion  as  to  whether 
the  defendants,  or  any  of  them,  were  guilty  or  innocent, 
or  morally  responsible  for  the  result  of  the  Haymarket 
meeting,  and  is  conscious  that  he  has  no  opinion  whatever 
as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  any  of  the  defendants,  and 
did  not  discuss  the  question  of  their  guilt  or  innocence 
with  any  person;  is  a  widower  with  three  children;  thirty- 
nine  years  of  age;  born  at  Columbus,  Ohio;  has  been 
working  for  Marshall  Field  fourteen  months;  lived  in  Co- 
lumbus, all  his  life,  up  to  the  time  of  his  coming  to  Chi- 
cago, about  fourteen  months  ago;  has  read  in  the  news- 


papers  something  about  socialism,  communism  and  anarch- 
ism ;  has  read  very  little,  and  has  very  little  "knowledge 
about  them;  is  not  prejudiced  against  men  forming  socie- 
ties, or  having  minds  of  their  own;  "  I  am  not  preju- 
"  diced  against  that  class  of  men;"  has  no  prejudice 
against  labor  organizations  or  trades  unions,  nor  any  in- 
dividual who  organizes  such;  is  not  acquainted  with  any 
of  the  defendants,  and  never  has  seen  any  of  them  to  his 
knowledge  before;  knows  none  of  the  police  force;  knows 
none  of  the  officers  at  the  Haymarket  meeting  that  night; 
never  conversed  with  any  individual  who  was  present  at 
the  Haymarket  meeting  on  the  4th  of  May,  nor  with 
anybody  who  professed  to  know  anything  of  the  facts,  and 
could  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  each  and  every 
one  of  the  defendants  solely  upon  the  proof  presented  in 
court,  regardless  of  anything  that  he  had  heard  upon  the 
subject,  or  any  opinion  that  he  has  formed,  although  he 
had  formed  no  opinion  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  any  of 
the  defendants. 

Said  juror,  having  been  accepted  without  objection  by 
the  defense,  was  turned  over  to  the  prosecution  for  in- 
quity;  whereupon  said  juror  again  answered  that  he  be- 
lieved in  the  maintenance  of  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois and  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  had 
no  sympathy  with  any  individual  or  class  of  individuals 
who  had  for  their  purposes  or  objects  the  overthrow  of 
that  law  by  force,  and  believed  that  he  could  determine 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  and  each  of  them 
upon  the  proof  presented  to  him  in  court,  under  the  in- 
structions of  the  court,  and  upon  that  alone. 

Juorr  ANDREW  HAMILTON  (D,  259,  359,  365), 
first  examined  by  the  defendants'  counsel,  answered  that 
he  resides  at  1,521  43d  street,  in  the  town  of  Hyde  Park, 


I25 

in  Cook  county;  has  a  wife  and  family;  that  he  has  a  re- 
tail hardware  business  at  3,913  Cottage  Grove  avenue; 
has  lived  in  Chicago  about  twenty  years;  was  born  in 
Nova  Scotia;  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States;  has  read 
and  heard  of  the  Hay  market  meeting;  has  formed  an 
opinion  as  to  the  nature  and  character  of  the  crime  com- 
mitted at  the  Haymarket,  but  has  formed  no  opinion  as 
to  who  perpetrated  that  crime  or  who  is  responsible  for 
it;  has  formed  an  opinion  that  somebody  is  responsible 
for  the  death  of  the  police  officers  at  that  meeting,  but 
has  formed  no  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  these  de- 
fendants, or  any  of  them,  are  responsible  for  it;  is  ac- 
quainted with  none  of  the  defendants;  read  the  accounts 
of  the  Haymarket  matter  in  the  Chicago  "  News  "  and 
"  Tribune  ";  did  not  read  the  papers  very  fully  or  care- 
fully, because  of  serious  sickness  in  his  family  at  that 
time  and  after  it;  has  conversed  with  no  one  who  was 
present  at  the  Haymarket  or  who  pretended  to  have  been 
present;  is  acquainted  with  no  members  of  the  police 
force  of  the  city;  don't  know  as  he  knows  anything 
about  socialism,  anarchism  or  communism;  feels  per- 
fectly free  to  listen  to  the  testimony  in  this  case  as  it  shall 
be  given  by  witnesses  sworn,  and  the  charge  of  the 
court,  and  render  an  absolutely  impartial  verdict  in  the 
case,  if  he  is  selected  as  a  juryman;  the  feeling  that  he 
has,  that  somebody  ought  to  suffer  for  the  crime  per- 
petrated at  the  Haymarket,  would  have  no  tendency  or 
weight  against  these  defendants,  unless  the  testimony 
clearly  showed  that  they  are  the  ones  that  are  respon- 
sible; has  no  prejudice  or  objection  against  the  organiza- 
tion of  laboring  men  for  their  own  protection  and  ad- 
vancement, while  they  confine  themselves  within  the 
limits  of  the  law;  never  expressed  to  any  one  the  duties 


126 

of  a  juror  in  this  case;  never  have  expressed  an  opinion 
as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants;  never 
made  use  of  the  remark  that  these  defendants  ought  to  be 
made  an  example  of,  but  have  said  that  whoever  was 
responsible  for  the  Haymarket  massacre  ought  to  be 
punished;  that  he  is  ready  to  try  these  men,  each  and  all 
of  them,  without  any  prejudice,  purely  and  entirely  upon 
the  testimony  which  shall  be  produced  here,  without  in- 
fluence of  any  former  convictions  or  opinions,  and  has  not 
the  slightest  doubt  of  his  ability  to  do  so;  that  he  never 
expressed  to  any  one  a  willingness  or  an^  eagerness  to  sit 
on  this  jury;  never  said  anything  of  the  kind;  that  he 
does  not  desire  to  sit  on  this  jury,  but  "  means  to  tell  the 
truth." 

After  the  foregoing  examination  by  the  defendants' 
counsel,  Mr.  Hamilton  was  accepted  as  a  juror  by  the 
defense,  without  any  objection,  and  turned  over  to  the 
state  for  further  examination,  when  he  said,  in  answer  to 
inquiries,  that  if  he  was  taken  as  a  juror  in  this  case,  to 
try  the  same  upon  the  proof  presented  to  him,  that  he  be- 
lieved that  he  could  determine  the  innocence  or  guilt  of 
the  defendants  upon  the  proof  presented  in  court,  regard- 
less of  everything  else. 

Juror  CHARLES  A.  LUDWIG  (D,  352,  362,  392), 
being  examined  by  the  defendants'  counsel  as  to  his 
competency  as  a  juror,  said  that  he  lived  at  4,401  South 
State  street;  engaged  as  a  book-keeper  for  Charles  L. 
Page,  337  Wabash  avenue,  who  is  a  dealer  in  wood  man- 
tels; is  twenty-seven  years  of  age,  unmarried,  and  lives 
with  his  mother;  has  read  and  heard  newspaper  accounts 
of  the  Haymarket  meeting,  but  from  what  he  has  read 
and  heard  did  not  form  nor  express  an  opinion  upon  the 
question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  any  of  the  defend- 


127 

ants;  his  information  derived  entirely  from  reading;  has 
had  no  conversation  with  any  one  pretending  to  know 
anything  about  the  matter;  did  not  make  up  his  mind  or 
come  to  any  conclusion  upon  the  question  of  the  defend- 
ants' guilt  or  innocence  of  the  offense  committed  at  the 
Hay  market;  knows  very  little  about  the  principles  of 
communists,  socialists  or  anarchists;  from  the  little  read- 
ing that  he  has  done,  or  the  attention  given,  knows  very 
little  about  their  principles;  even  considering  what  little 
he.  has  read  about  them,  and  considering  everything  else 
that  he  cojuld  imagine  and  think  of,  he  knows  of  nothing 
that  would  cause  a  prejudice  in  his  mind  which  would 
prevent  him  from  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  in  the 
case  under  the  evidence  that  was  introduced  and  the 
charge  of  the  court;  has  no  objection  to  any  organiza- 
tion of  labor  unions  or  the  formation  of  such ;  when  they 
have  not  for  their  object  the  violation  of  the  law,  cer- 
tainly does  not  object  to  them;  does  not  condemn  a  prin- 
ciple or  a  man  because  he  does  not  concur  in  his  ideas, 
provided  he  is  not  contending  for  the  violation  of  the  law; 
is  a  member  of  the  Baptist  church;  is  not  acquainted 
with  any  member  of  the  police  force  in  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago, nor  any  of  the  city  officials  in  the  police  depart- 
ment. 

Without  objection,  defendants'  counsel  accepted  Mr. 
Ludwig  as  a  juror  and  passed  him  to  the  state  for  exam- 
ination, when  he  said  that  he  knew  of  no  reason  whatever, 
if  he  was  taken  as  a  juror  in  this  case,  why  he  could  not 
determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  from 
the  proof  itself,  regardless  of  what  he  had  heard  or  read: 
knows  none  of  the  defendants. 

Juror  J.  H.  BRAYTON  (F,  132,  368),  being  first 
examined  by  the  state,  answered  as  follows: 


128 

Lives  at  Englewood,  Cook  county,  and  has  lived  there 
since  1872;  is  a  school  teacher  by  profession,  being  prin- 
cipal of  the  Webster  school,  33d  street  and  Wentworth 
avenue,  in  the  city  of  Chicago;  has  taught  school  in  the 
public  schools  of  the  city  of  Chicago  for  three  years;  was 
born  at  Lyons,  New  York  State;  is  forty  years  of  age, 
married,  and  has  a  family;  has  lived  in  the  west  over 
twenty-five  years;  has  read  and  talked  about  the  Hay- 
'market  meeting  and  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  nature 
and  character  of  the  crime  perpetrated  at  the  Haymarket 
on  the  4th  of  May;  from  accounts  that  he  has  read  in 
the  newspapers  has  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  defendants;  has  talked  with  no  one  that 
professed  to  know  anything  about  it;  if  he  was  taken  and 
sworn  as  a  juror  in  this  case  to  try  the  same  upon  the 
facts  presented  to  him  here  in  court,  he  believes  that[]he 
would  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants 
upon  the  proof  alone,  regardless  of  what  he  had  read  and 
heard;  has  read  something  about  socialism,  communism 
and  anarchy;  has  given  the  matter  some  thought  and  al- 
tention ;  again  says  that  if  he  should  be  taken  and  sworn 
as  a  juror  in  this  case  to  try  the  same,  that  he  believes 
that  he  could  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  de- 
fendants upon  the  proofs  presented  to  him  in  court,  regard- 
less of  everything  else,  regardless  of  what  he  has  read  or 
heard,  or  the  opinion  that  he  has  formed  upon  the  proof 
presented  in  court,  under  the  instructions  of  the  court; 
knows  none  of  the  defendants;  never  saw  any  of  them 
before. 

Whereupon  Mr.  Brayton  was  accepted  by  the  state  as 
a  juror,  and  passed  to  the  defendants'  counsel  for  further 
examination,  when  he  said  that  he  had  been  a  teacher  in 
the  public  schools  of  Cook  and  Will  counties  about  fifteen 


I2p 

years;  is  acquainted  with  no  member  of  the  police  force 
of  the  city  of  Chicago;  has  communicated  with  no  one 
who  claimed  to  have  been  at  the  Haymarket  meeting  at 
the  time  of  the  occurrence  there;  has  no  feeling  against 
the  organization  of  laboring  men  or  the  establishment  of 
trades  unions  and  labor  unions;  has  no  objection  to  them 
so  long  as  they  keep  within  the  law;  believes  that  they 
have  a  right  to  organize  societies  for  their  mutual  aid  and 
protection,  assistance,  education  and  general  advance- 
ment, and  has  no  objection  against  any  organizer  of  labor 
societies  or  unions;  says  that  he  believes  that,  notwith- 
standing his  opinion  or  the  prejudice  that  he  may  have 
against  communism  or  anarchism,  etc.,  notwithstanding 
his  opinion  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  defendants,  that  he  could  listen  to  the  testimony  and 
decide  the  case  upon  it  alone,  regardless  and  entirely  out- 
side of  any  opinion  or  prejudice  which  he  may  have;  his 
mind  is  so  constituted  and  his  experience  such  that  he  is 
not  in  the  habit  of  relying  implicitly  upon  newspaper 
publications. 

At  this  stage  of  the  examination,  Mr.  Foster,  one  of 
the  counsel  for  the  defendants,  said: 

"  These  four  jurors  might  be  sworn  to  try  the  case, 
your  Honor." 

Whereupon  Mr.  Bray  ton  said  to  the  court: 

"  Your  Honor,  this  is  my  vacation,  and  it  is  the  only 
time  I  have  to  be  away.  I  tried  to  answer  these  ques- 
tions truthfully,  but  I  would  like  to  be  excused." 

"  The  COURT:  I  cannot  discharge  you.  I  am  in  the 
same  condition." 

Whereupon  the  last  four  jurors  accepted  were  then 
sworn  to  try  the  case,  among  whom  was  Mr.  Hrayton, 
against  whose  competency  and  qualifications  no  objection 
was  raised  by  the  defendants. 


130 

The  court  then,  on  the  afternoon  of  July  8t^h,  adjourned 
to  July  pth.  During  the  afternoon  session  of  July  pth, 
Mr.  Bray  ton  arose  and  addressed  the  court  as  follows: 

"  Mr.  BRAYTON:  It  is  probably  rather  more  technical 
than  material;  but  under  the  consideration  and  gravity  of 
this  case  I  think  it  my  duty  to  make  this  statement.  In 
my  statement  yesterday  I  said  that  all  my  information 
was  based  upon  newspapers.  I  had  forgotten  at  that  time 
that  I  had  also  seen  a  circular  that  was  a  call  for  the 
Haymarket  meeting.  I  consider  it  rather  technical,  but 
still  I  consider  it  my  duty  to  make  that  statement. 

"  The  COURT:  When  he  asked  the  question  you  had 
forgotten  the  fact  that  you  had  seen  any  such  circular? 

"  A.     Yes. 

"  Capt.  BLACK:  We  do  not  think  that  will  make  any 
difference. 

"  Mr.  GRINNELL:     That  is  satisfactory  to  us." 

ALANSON  H.  REED  (G,  253,  311),  being  examined 
first  by  the  state,  said  he  lived  at  3,442  Groveland  avenue, 
Chicago;  was  a  piano  manufacturer  and  dealer;  had  been 
in  that  business  twenty -three  or  twenty-four  years;  has 
lived  twenty-five  years  in  the  city  of  Chicago;  is  forty- 
live  years  old;  was  born  in  Boston;  said  that  he  had  an 
opinion  as  to  the  character  and  nature  of  the  offense  com- 
mitted at  the  Haymarket,  May  4;  from  newspaper  ac- 
counts only  has  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  defendants;  notwithstanding  the  opinion,  which  was 
based  upon  what  he  had  read  in  the  newspapers,  he  be- 
lieved that  he  could  give  a  fair  and  impartial  trial  upon  the 
evidence  here  in  court,  and  base  his  verdict  upon  that. 

After  which  examination  he  was  accepted  by  the  state 
and  turned  over  to  the  defendants  for  further  examina- 
tion, when  he  said  he  had  no  prejudice  against  the 
organization  of  laboring  men,  or  the  formation  of  unions 
by  laboring  men,  if  they  kept  within  the  law;  that  he 


believes  in  their  organization  for  their  advancement; 
believes  they  have  a  right  to  organize  meetings  for 
discussing  wages,  what  wages  they  ought  to  have,  dis- 
cussing questions  of  practicability  of  working  at  a  stip- 
ulated sum,  or  for  a  stipulated  number  of  hours  per 
day,  and  has  no  prejudice  against  any  individual  who 
is  an  organizer  of  labor  unions,  if  such  organizer  and 
such  labor  unions  are  kept  within  the  law;  has  some 
prejudice  against,  although  very  little  knowlege  about, 
socialists,  communists  and  anarchists,  but  would  not  have 
a  prejudice  against  a  man  because  of  his  views;  would 
have  a  prejudice  against  any  man  that  he  considered  was 
undermining  the  social  and  political  laws  of  the  country;  in 
the  same  category  might  be  placed  his  prejudice  against 
Mormons,  and  he  further  might  have  a  prejudice  against 
one  of  the  leading  political  parties  to  which  he  was  op- 
posed, but  has  made  no  study  or  inquiry  into  the  principles 
of  socialists,  communists  or  anarchists. 

"  Q.  Yet  any  feeling  that  you  might  have  upon  that 
subject,  I  presume,  would  not,  in  your  opinion  now — you 
do  not  believe  would  weigh  a  feather's  weight  in  the  trial 
of  this  case  ? 

"  A.     No,  sir;  I  could  not  say  it  would,  honestly." 

And  he  further  s.aid  that  he  would  not  discredit  the 
testimony  of  witnesses  who  might  not  entertain  views  not 
in  accordance  with  his  own;  is  not  acquainted  with  any  of 
the  defendants;  does  not  remember  to  have  seen  any  of 
the  defendants;  heard  some  speeches  on  the  lake  front, 
but  heard  none  of  the  defendants;  has  only  a  qualified 
opinion  as  to  the  connection  of  the  defendants  with  the 
commission  of  the  offense  at  the  Haymarket,  May  4th;  he 
has  no  proof  of  the  fact  that  they  were  connected  with 
that  offense;  that  his  mind  is  clear  to  hear  the  proof,  and 
to  act  under  the  proof  and  nothing  else  in  this  case;  that 


132 

he  certainly  would  not  convict  a  man  vvhon^  the  evidence 
did  not  convince  his  mind  was  guilty;  he  could  not  do 
that;  that  he  would  not  under  any  circumstances  convict 
any  man,  unless  the  testimony  convinced  his  mind,  beyond 
all  reasonable  doubt,  that  he  was  guilty  of  the  offense 
charged;  says  that  he  is  a  free-thinker;  is  a  member  of 
no  church;  attends  different  churches;  was  raised  in  the 
Episcopal  church,  and  means  by  the  use  of  the  word 
"  free-thinker "  that  he  does  not  believe  in  the  super- 
natural, nor  inspiration,  but  is  not  an  atheist  by  any 
means;  is  acquainted  with  no  police  officer  of  the  city  of 
Chicago,  so  far  as  he  knows,  and  knows  none  of  those 
that  were  injured  or  killed  at  the  Haymarket  meeting. 

Mr.  Reed  was  also  accepted  by  the  defendants'  counsel 
as  a  juror  in  this  case,  no  objection  being  made  or  raised 
as  to  his  competency. 

Juror  JOHN  B.  GREINER  (G,  355,  412,  441),  first 
examined  by  the  defendants'  counsel,  said  that  he  lived 
at  70  California  avenue,  Humboldt  Park,  Cook  county; 
has  been  for  seven  years  an  employe  of  the  North- 
Western  railroad,  as  clerk;  is  unmarried  and  lives 
with  his  mother;  was  born  in  Columbus,  Ohio;  has 
resided  in  Chicago  since  March,  1880;  is  twenty-five 
years  of  age;  has  read  and  heard  of  the  Haymarket 
meeting  on  the  4th  of  May;  heard  of  the  killing  of  the 
policeman  by  the  explosion  of  the  bomb;  has  formed  an 
opinion,  based  upon  newspaper  reports,  as  to  the  innocence 
or  guilt  of  the  defendants. 

"  Q.  Now,  is  that  opinion  one,  Mr.  Greiner,  that 
would  influence  your  verdict  if  you  should  be  selected 
to  try  the  case  as  a  juror,  do  you  believe? 

"  A.  I  certainly  think  it  would  affect  it  to  some  extent. 
I  do  not  see  how  it  could  be  otherwise. 

"  Q.     Would  it  affect  it  to  the  extent  that  you  could  not 


133 

listen  to  the  testimony  and  the  charge  of  the  court  and 
render  an  impartial  verdict,  uninfluenced  by  the  opinion 
that  you  have? 

"  A.     That  is  a  pretty  hard  question  to  answer. 

"  Q.  Nobody  can  answer  it  but  you.  It  is  for  you. 
The  question  is  not,  would  it  absolutely,  because  you  do 
not  know,  but  do  you  now  believe  that  it  would? 

"  A.  Well,  if  I  was  upon  the  jury  it  would  be  my 
duty,  of  course,  to  abide  by  the  evidence  and  to  ignore 
everything  else.  I  do  not  place  any  particular  con- 
fidence in  what  I  see  in  the  papers,  as  far  as  that  is 
concerned. 

"  Q.  I  know  that  would  be  your  duty,  but  men  will 
not  always  do  their  duty;  sometimes  they  won't  and 
sometimes  they  can't.  Now,  do  you  think  you  can — do 
you  believe  that  you  can  lay  aside  your  opinion  and  lay 
aside  all  prejudice  which  exists  in  your  mind,  and  act 
upon  the  testimony  and  that  alone,  and  render  a  verdict 
which  is  absolutely  impartial? 

*•  A.     1  think  I  could  do  so. 

"  Q.     Do  you  believe  you  could  do  so? 

"  A.     I  think  so." 

Mr.  Greiner  said  further  that  he  had  a  •  general  idea  as 
to  what  socialism,  communism  or  anarchism  is,  but  never 
had  made  it  a  special  study;  Jiave  no  prejudice  against 
communists,  socialists  or  anarchists,  provided  they  do  not 
violate  the  laws;  have  no  prejudice  or  objections  against 
the  organization  of  laboring  men  into  unions — trades 
unions,  labor  unions — so  long  as  they  resort  to  proper 
means  to  obtain  their  end,  but  do  not  believe  in  their  co- 
ercing anybody  else. 

Upon  the  closing  of  the  examination  of  juror  Greiner 
he  was  accepted  without  objection  by  defendants'  counsel 
and  passed  to  the  .prosecution  for  further  examination, 
when  he  said  that  he  had  read  some  magazine  articles 
upon  the  subject  of  socialism,  communism  and  anarchism, 
and,  after  some  other  formal  questions,  he  was  accepted 
by  the  state. 


134 

G.  W.  ADAMS  (H,  30  and  38),  first  examined  by  the 
state  as  to  his  qualifications  as  a  juror,  said  that  he 
lived  at  Evanston;  was  a  painter  by  trade;  has  worked  at 
his  trade  till  within  the  last  year,  during  which  time  he 
has  been  on  the  road  as  salesman  of  prepared  paints — 
mixed  paints;  is  twenty-seven  years  old;  was  born  at 
Danville,  Illinois;  has  lived  in  Cook  county  twenty-two  or 
twenty-three  years;  his  parents  live  at  Evanston,  Cook 
county;  is  a  member  of  the  Methodist  church  and  un- 
married; was  not  in  the  county  of  Cook  on  the  4th  day 
of  May;  was  in  the  State  of  Michigan;  saw  some  ac- 
counts of  the  Haymarket  meeting  of  May  4th  in  Michigan 
newspapers;  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  nature  and  char- 
acter of  the  crime  perpetrated  at  the  Haymarket  from  the 
reading;  says  that  if  he  is  taken  as  a  juror  in  this  case  he 
believes  that  he  could  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  defendants  upon  the  proof  presented  in  court,  regard- 
less of  everything  else;  knows  none  of  the  defendants; 
don't  know  that  he  ever  has  seen  any  of  them  before;  has 
no  prejudice  against  labor  organizations,  and  knows  no 
reason  whatever  why  he  cannot  fairly  and  impartially  try 
this  case  upon  the  proof  presented  in  court,  and  upon  that 
alone  determine  whether  or  not  the  defendants  are  guilty; 
knows  very  little  about  socialists,  communists  or  an- 
archists. 

Mr.  Adams  was  tendered  by  the  state  to  the  defendants 
for  examination,  and  in  answer  to  the  counsel  for  the  de- 
fendants, he  said  that  he  had  followed  his  trade  as  a 
painter  till  within  the  last  year;  worked  at  his  trade  about 
eleven  years;  conversed  about  the  Haymarket  matter  with 
various  individuals;  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  offense  committed  at  the  Haymarket;  does  not  remem- 
ber the  names  of  the  individuals  supposed  to  be  connected 


135 

with  that,  but  thought  that  some  of  the  defendants  were  in- 
terested in  it;  that  whatever  opinion  he  has  in  regard  to  the 
connection  of  the  defendants  with  the  Haymarket  meet- 
ing is  not  a  strong  opinion;  has  no  prejudice  against 
labor  classes  or  individuals  belonging  to  labor  classes, 
or  organizations,  or  trades  unions,  or  labor  unions  for 
their  own  protection,  and  no  feeling  or  prejudice  against 
any  individual  who  organizes  laboring  men  into  societies 
or  labor  organizations,  although  he  never  belonged  to  nnv 
labor  organization  himself;  does  not  know  enough  about 
socialists,  communists  or  anarchists  to  have  any  prejudice 
against  those  classes,  and  that,  notwithstanding  any  opin- 
ion which  he  may  have  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  some  of  the  defendants,  his  mind  is  in  a 
condition  in  which  he  can  say  now  that  he  can  try  this 
case  upon  the  testimony,  and  only  upon  the  testimony 
which  may  be  introduced  in  court;  that  he  understands 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  jury  in  this  case,  as  in  all  other 
criminal  cases,  to  decide  and  return  a  verdict  which  shall 
be  formed  entirely  upon  the  legal  evidence  in  court;  rec- 
ognizes the  fact  that  no  man  can  legally  be  convicted 
upon  newspaper  statements,  or  upon  street  gossip  or  talk; 
understands  that  there  is  but  one  kind  of  legitimate  evi- 
dence which  ought  to  work  a  conviction  in  any  case,  and 
that  is  proper  and  legal  evidence  introduced  in  court  in 
the  presence  and  hearing  of  the  court,  and  upon  that 
alone;  recognizes  the  principle  that  no  man  can  be  con- 
victed of  any  crime  unless  his  guilt  is  established  bevond 
all  reasonable  doubt,  and  if  the  guilt  is  not  so  established 
he  is  entitled  to  a  verdict  of  acquittal,  notwithstanding 
any  prejuice,  bias  or  opinion  which  a  juror  might  have 
outside  of  court — which  he  might  have  gained  outside  of 
court  before  he  was  selected  as  a  juror;  says  that  his 


136 

mind  is  in  that  condition  that  he  can  lay  aside  all  preju- 
dices, all  opinions,  all  bias — everything  which  would  be 
either  for  or  against  defendants;  believes  that  he  can  de- 
cide this  case  upon  the  testimony  and  the  testimony  alone, 
uninfluenced,  unbiased  .and  unaffected  by  any  opinion 
which  he  may  have. 

Mr.  Adams  was  accepted  as  a  juror  in  this  case  by  the 
defendants,  without  objection. 

H.  T.  SANFORD  (H,  293),  being  examined  first  by  the 
defendants'  counsel,  said  that  he  lived  at  Oak  Park,  Cook 
county;  that    he  had  been  a  clerk  in  the  North- Western 
railroad  company's  office  in  Chicago  about  fifteen  months; 
that  he  is  twenty-four  years  of  age;  was  formerly  a  petro- 
leum broker  in  New  York;  was  born  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  and  is  a  married   man;  has   an  opinion  as   to   the 
guilt    or  innocence    of    some    of    the  defendants;    has  an 
opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  an  offense  was  committed  at 
the  Hay  market  meeting  by  the   throwing  of  the    bomb; 
thinks  he  knows  something  about  the  duties  of  a  juror; 
understands  that  when  a  man  is  on  trial,  whether  it  be  for 
his  life,  or  for  any  penal  offense,  that  he  can  only  be  con- 
victed upon  testimony  which  is  introduced  in  the  presence 
and  hearing  of  the  jury;  knows  that  any  newspaper  gossip 
or  any  street  gossip   has  nothing  to  do.  with    the    matter 
whatever,  and  that  the  jury  are  to  consider  only  the  testi- 
mony which   is  admitted  by  the  court   actually,  and  then 
are  to  consider  that  testimony  under  the  direction  as  con- 
tained  in  the   charge  of  the  court,  and  says  that   if    he 
should  be  selected  as  a  juror  in  this  case  to   try  and   de- 
termine   it,  believes    that    he    could    exercise   legally  the 
duties  of  a  juror;  that  he  could  listen  to  the  testimony  and 
the  charge  of  the  court,  and,  after  deliberation,  return  a 
verdict  which  would  be  right  and  fair  as  between  the  de- 


fendants  and  the  people  of  the  State  of  Illinois;  that  he 
could  fairly  and  impartially  listen  to  the  testimony  that  is 
introduced  in  court,  and  the  charge  of  the  court,  and  upon 
that  alone  render  an  impartial  verdict;  has  very  little 
knowledge  of  the  principles  contended  for  by  socialists, 
communists  or  anarchists;  has,  from  what  he  knows,  a 
decided  prejudice  against  them;  that  he  would  attempt  to 
try  the  case  upon  the  evidence  introduced  here  upon  the 
issue  which  is  presented  here;  supposes  he  has  an  opinion 
in  his  own  mind  that  the  defendants,  or  some  of  them,  en- 
couraged the  throwing  of  the  bomb. 

Counsel  for  defendants  put  this  question: 

"  Q.  Well,  then,  so  far  as  this  is  concerned,  I  do  not 
care  very  much  what  your  opinion  may  be  now,  for  your 
opinion  now  is  made  up  of  random  conversations  and 
from  newspaper  reading,  as  I  understand? 

"  A.     Yes, 

"  Q.  That  is  nothing  reliable.  You  do  not  regard 
that  as  being  in  the  nature  of  sworn  testimony  at  all,  do 
you? 

"  A.     No. 

"  Q.  Now,  when  the  testimony  is  introduced  here  and 
the  witnesses  are  examined  and  cross-examined,  you  see 
them  and  look  into  their  countenances,  judge  who  are 
worthy  of  belief  and  who  are  not  worthy  of  belief.  Don't 
you  think  then  you  would  be  able  to  determine  the  ques- 
tion? 

«  A.     Yes." 

Has  no  opposition  to  the  organization  of  laboring  men 
into  associations  or  societies  or  unions  for  their  own  ad- 
vancement or  protection,  when  they  do  not  violate  the 
law;  has  no  acquaintance  with  any  member  of  the  police 
force;  had  no  acquaintance  with  any  one  that  was  killed 
or  injured  at  the  Haymarket  meeting;  says  that  "if  he 
"  should  be  selected  as  a  juror  in  this  case  he  believes 


'38 

"  that,  regardless  of  all  prejudice  or  opinion  which  he 
"  nqw  has,  he  could  listen  to  the  legitimate  testimony  in- 
"  troduced  in  court,  and  upon  that  and  that  alone  render 
"  and  return  a  fair  and  impartial,  unprejudiced  and  un- 
"  biased  verdict." 

Whereupon  defendants'  counsel  challenged  the  juror 
(Sanford)  for  cause;  which  was  overruled  by  the  court, 
and,  the  defendants  having  exhausted  their  peremptory 
challenges,  they  stood  silent. 

Whereupon  the  state  further  examined  Mr.  Sanford, 
who  further  stated  that  he  never  had  expressed  his  belief 
or  opinion  as  to  the  truth  of  the  narrations  which  he  had 
read  in  the  newspapers,  and  believed  that  if  taken  as  a 
juror  to  try  the  case  he  could  try  the  same  fairly  and  im- 
partially, and  render  a  verdict  upon  the  law  and  the  evi- 
dence; knows  none  of  the  defendants;  knows  no  one  who 
is  interested  in  them  personally,  that  he  is  aware  of. 

It  is  not  out  of  place  to  suggest  that  the  above  jury  was 
a  typical  American  jury;  one  of  them  born  on  foreign 
soil;  the  twelve  representing,  by  descent,  different  nation- 
alities, but  all  thoroughly  American.  Every  one  intelli- 
gent, conscientious,  fair,  impartial  and  appreciating  the' 
gravity  of  the  charge  and  the  solemnity  of  his  duty.  Mr. 
Hamilton,  in  his  retail  hardware  store  in  the  town  of 
Hyde  Park,  may,  in  a  small  way,  be  said  to  be  an  em- 
ployer. Mr.  Reed  conducts  his  own  business  of  selling 
pianos  manufactured  by  others.  They  embrace  all  classes 
of  citizens.  All  work  for  a  living,  and  the  twelve  are 
representative  freemen,  worthy  the  republic. 

Further  it  is  significant   that  the  eight  defendants  and 
their  four  lawyers  first  accepted  eight  of  the  entire  panel 


and  turned  them  over  to  the  state,  raising  no  'objection 
whatever  except  to  Mr.  Denker,  although  at  that  time 
they  had  142  challenges  still  to  be  used.  Messrs.  Reed, 
Brayton  and  Adams  were  accepted  by  the  state  first  and 
then  by  the  defense,  withcjut  objection.  Mr.  Sanford 
was  objected  to,  because,  before  he  was  called,  defend- 
ants had  exhausted  the  whole  number  of  their  peremptory 
challenges,  forty-three  of  which  had  been  lavishly,  ex- 
travagantly and  ridiculously  used  in  filling  the  twelfth 
place  in  the  panel,  finally  occupied  by  Mr.  Sanford.  Ten 
of  the  jury  were  accepted  by  defendants  without  objec- 
tion. 


(2.)     OVERRULED  CHALLENGES  FOR  CAUSE  COM- 
PLAINED OF. 

Plaintiffs  in  error  complain  in  their  brief  of  challenges 
for  cause  which  were  overruled  by  the  court  in  cases 
where  persons  called  as  jurors  were  afterwards  chal- 
lenged peremptorily  by  them.  They  call  attention  in 
their  brief  to  twenty-six  instances,  and  cite  portions  of  the 
examination  .and  answers  of  these  twenty-six  talesmen. 
We  have  not  time  to  take  up  the  case  of  an)-  of  these 
talesmen.  It  will  be  seen,  upon  a  comparison  of  the  rec- 
ord with  the  portions  of  it  which  appear  in  their  brief, 
that  the  brief  does  not  fairly  and  impartially  present  the 
examinations.  We  take  the  position  with  reference  to 
this  branch  of  the  case: 

First.  That  the  plaintiffs  in  error  are  not  in  a  position 
to  take  advantage  of  any  errors,  if  errors  there  were,  in 
the  examination  of  any  of  the  talesmen.  It  has  always 
been  held  by  this  court  that  no  party  to  any  suit  could 


140 

take  advantage  of  errors  in  the  impaneling  of  the  jury, 
unless  their  peremptory  challenges  had  been" exhausted, 
because  if  they  had  peremptory  challenges  which  they 
could  have  used,  however  erronous  a  ruling  of  the  court 
may  have  been,  they  were  not  prejudiced  thereby,  as  they 
might  have  used  their  peremptory  challenges  to  have  re- 
jected the  objectionable  juror. 

In  Collins  v.  The  People,  103  111.,  23,  the  court  say: 

"  It  appears  that  in  the  selection  of  the  jury,  a  juror 
was  challenged  by  the  counsel  on  the  ground  that  he  did 
not  understand  the  English  language.  *  *  The 

challenge  was  disallowed,  and  thereupon  the  juror  was 
sworn  and  served  as  a  juror  in  the  case,  and  this  is 
assigned  as  error.  Without  stopping  to  inquire  whether 
the  juror  was  incompetent  on  the  ground  suggested,  it  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  it  does  not  appear  that  the  accused 
had  exhausted  his  peremptory  challenges,  or  that  he,  sub-- 
sequently  had  occasion  to  use  all  his  peremptory  challenges, 
and  such  being  the  case,  the  objection  is  not  well  taken." 

This  doctrine  of  the  court  is  based  upon  the  ground 
that  a  party  cannot  complain  of  an  error  which  is  not 
prejudicial  to  him,  and  that  so  long  as  the  party  has  per- 
emptory challenges  which  he  can  use,  he  is  not  prejudiced 
by  any  error  of  this  sort,  because  he  has  the  means  at  his  dis- 
posal of  rejecting  the  objectionable  juror.  If  the  first  eleven 
jurors  taken  had  constituted  the  panel  which  tried  this 
case  no  error  could  have  been  alleged  upon  the  rulings  of 
the  court  previous  to  that  time,  because,  when  the  first 
eleven  had  been  taken,  the  plaintiffs  in  error  had  at  their 
disposal  forty-three  unused  peremptory  challenges.  An 
inspection  of  the  record  of  the  examination  of  talesmen, 
after  the  eleven  jurors  .had  been  taken,  will  disclose  the 
fact,  beyond  peradventure,  that  the  plaintiffs  recklessly, 
and  for  the  sole  purpose  of  taking  advantage  of  any 


errors  which  may  have  previously  occurred,  frittered  away 
their  forty-three  peremptory  challenges;  that  being  so, 
they  did  not  have  "  occasion  "  to  use  them.  They  made 
use  of  their  peremptory  challenges  remaining  simply  and 
solely  for  the  purpose  of  exhausting  them;  not  because 
they  needed  them,  nor  because  the  use  of  those  peremp- 
tory challenges  was  necessary  to  their  defense,  but  simply 
in  order  that  they  might  take  advantage  of  any  errors 
which  they  claimed  existed.  The  object  of  the  law,  in 
permitting  peremptory  challenges  to  either  party,  is  a 
practical  one,  and  is  to  enable  them  to  reject  jurors  not 
satisfactory  to  them.  If,  instead  of  using  their  challenges 
for  that  purpose,  they  use  them  for  some  other  purpose, 
they  have  not  had  "  occasion,"  within  the  meaning  of  the 
decisions  of  this  court,  to  exhaust  them.  If  a  party 
who  has  not  exhausted  his  challenges  is  not  prejudiced, 
by  reason  of  an  erroneous  ruling  upon  a  challenge  for 
cause,  it  follows,  as  a  necessary  conclusion,  that  a  party 
who  exhausts  his  peremptory  challenges  solely  to  take 
advantage  of  errors  has  not  been  prejudiced  by  them: 
and  that  is  the  position  in  which  plaintiffs  in  error  in  this 
case  stand. 

In  fourteen  of  the  cases  they  ask  a  few  general  ques- 
tions, challenge  for  cause,  which  was  overruled,  and 
immediately  challenge  them  peremptorily.  In  none  of 
these  twenty-nine  cases  was  any  attempt  made  to  dis- 
cover whether  or  not  the  talesmen  were  subject  to  chal- 
lenge for  cause;  in  fact,  an  examination  of  the  record  will 
disclose  the  fact  that  the  jurors  were  carefully  and  skill- 
fully led  on  by  the  counsel  making  the  examination,  so  as 
to  be  apparently  competent.  An  inspection  of  the  exami- 
nation of  the  talesmen,  who  were  examined  after  juror 
Adams  was  accepted,  with  an  examination  of  those  called 


I42 

previous  to  his  acceptance,  will  disclose  th^e  different 
method  followed  by  the  counsel,  and  will  furnish  conclu- 
sive proof  of  the  position  we  assume.  Take,  as  an  illus- 
tration, the  cases  of  Meyers  (H,  96),  Walcott  (H,  113), 
Metcalf  (H,  181),  Phillips  (H,  184),  Atwater  (H,i86), 
McElwaine  (H,  190),  Levi  (H,  214),  Beveridge  (H,  227), 
Keukan  (H,  250),  Madden  (H,  252),  West  (H,  263), 
Fay  (H,  265),  Sullivan  (H,  267),  Bowman  (H,  270), 
Bennett  (H,  275),  and  Beers  (H,  280). 

2d.  We  contend  that  there  was  no  error  in  the  re- 
fusal of  the  court  to  sustain  the  challenges  to  the  jurors 
named.  In  the  limited  time  which  we  have  for  the  prep- 
aration of  this  brief  we  find  it  impossible  to  take  up  the 
cases  cited  by  counsel  in  their  brief,  but  portions  of  the 
examination  of  each  one  of  those  talesmen  appear  in  the 
brief.  A  comparison  of  those  portions  with  the  whole 
record  of  the  examination  will  show  that  they  do  not 
fairly  set  out  the  effect  of  the  examination.  Isolated 
sentences,  detached  portions  of  an  examination  give  a 
distorted  appearance  to  it.  We  insist  that  upon  inspec- 
tion of  the  whole  record  of  the  examination  of  each  indi- 
vidual talesman  it  will  appear  that  no  error  was  com- 
mitted by  the  trial  judge. 

The  ruling  of  the  court  was  to  the  effect  that  a  juror 
who  had  formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  based  upon 
rumor  or  newspaper  statements  (about  the  truth  of  which 
he  had  expressed  no  opinion)  did  not  disqualify  him 
should  he  further  state  upon  oath  that  he  believed  he 
could  fairly  and  impartially  render  a  verdict,  and  the 
court  was  satisfied  of  the  proof  of  such  statement.  An 
examination  of  the  record  will  disclose  that  in  every  in- 
stance where  the  opinion  of  the  juror  was  formed  upon 
something  else  than  rumor  or  newspaper  reports,  a  chal- 


H3 

lenge  for  cause  was  sustained,  and  wherever  the  juror 
had  expressed  an  opinion  as  to  the  truth  of  the  rumor  or 
statements  which  he  had  read,  the  challenge  for  cause 
was  sustained. 

The  ruling  of  the  court  was  based  upon  the  statute- 
Revised  Statutes  1885,  Chap.  78,  Sec  14. 

We  submit  that  the  ruling  of  the  court  was  in  strict 
conformity  with  the  statute;  that  the  statute  is  constitu- 
tional, and  hence  that  the  ruling  was  correct.  , 

The  clause  of  the  statute  in  question  is  as  follows: 

"  And  provided  further  that  in  the  trial  of  any  criminal 
case,  the  fact  that  the  person  called  as  a  juror  has  formed 
an  opinion  or  impression,  based  upon  rumor  or  upon 
newspaper  statements  (about  the  truth  of  which  he  has 
expressed  no  opinion)  shall  not  disqualify  him  to  serve  as 
a  juror  in  such  case,  if  he  shall  upon  oath  state  that  he 
believes  he  can  fairly  and  impartially  render  a  verdict 
therein  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  the  evidence,  and 
the  court  shall  be  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  such  state- 
ment." 

Other  states  have  statutes  to  the  same  effect,  among 
them  the  State  of  New  York,  and  the  Court  of  Appeals  of 
that  state  has,  in  a  number  of  cases,  passed  both  upon 
its  constitutionality  and  its  interpretation. 

In  England,  and  in  many  of  the  states,  among  them 
New  York,  there  are  two  kinds  of  challenges,  one  for 
principal  cause  and  the  other  for  favor.  Challenge  -for 
principal  cause  is  based  upon  a  cause  which  of  itself  ex- 
cuses the  juror.  Challenge  for  favor  is  based  upon  the 
bias  or  prejudice  of  the  juror  and  is  a  question  of  fact 
which  originally  was  ascertained  by  triers,  from  whose 
decision  there  was  no  appeal.  In  this  state,  and  later  it 
New  York,  the  question  of  favor  was  submitted  to  the 


trial  judge,  and  the  statute  provides  that  an  appeal  might 
lie  from  his  decisions.  In  this  state,  a  challenge  to  the 
juror  includes  both  the  challenge  for  principal  cause  and 
for  favor,  and  the  practice  has  always  been  that  both 
questions  are  passed  upon  by  the  court. 

In  the  case  of  Stokes  v.  The  People,  53  N.  Y.,  171,  the 
court  say: 

"  Exceptions  were  taken  to  the  decisions  of  the  court 
upon  the  challenge  by  the  prisoner  of  several  jurors  for 
principal  cause.  It  was  not  claimed  by  the  counsel  of  the 
accused  that  any  error  was  committed,  if  chapter  475, 
volume  i,  page  1,133  of  Laws  of  1872,  is  constitutional. 
It  will  be  proper  first  to  determine  this  question,  as  in  case 
that  act  be  held  constitutional  and  valid,  it  will  be  un- 
necessary to  determine  whether  any  error  was  committed, 
had  the  law  remained  as  it  was  at  the  time  of  the  passage 
of  the  act.  The  position  of  the  counsel  for  the  accused  is, 
that  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  is  secured  to  persons  ac- 
cused of  felony  by  the  constitution,  and  that  this  secures 
the  further  right  of  trial  by  an  impartial  jury.  We  shall 
assume  the  correctness  of  the  latter  position.  Any  act  of 
the  legislature  providing  for  the  trial  otherwise  than  by  a 
common-law  jury,  composed  of  twelve  men,  would  be  un- 
constitutional and  void,  and  any  act  requiring  or  authoriz- 
ing such  trial  by  a  jury  partial  and  biased  against  either 
party  would  be  a  violation  of  one  of  the  essential  elements 
of  the  jury  referred  to  in  and  secured  by  the  constitution. 
The  counsel  insists  that  the  act  in  question  does  compel 
the  accused  to  be  tried  by  a  jury  partial  and  biased  against 
him.  That  the  common  law  held,  '  that  having 
formed  or  expressed  an  opinion  conclusively  proved 
a  want  of  impartiality,  and  for  this  reason  excluded 
the  juror  upon  a  challenge  for  the  principal  cause, 
without  inquiry  as  to  whether  this  would  influence  his 
action  as  a  juror.  The  authorities  upon  the  question  were 
somewhat  conflicting,  and  the  object  of  the  statute  was  to 
prescribe  a  definite  rule.  The  act  provides  that  the  pre- 
vious formation  or  expression  of  an  opinion  or  impression 
in  reference  to  the  circumstances  upon  which  any  criminal 


J45 

action  at  law  is  based,  or  in  reference  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner,  or  a  present  opinion  or  impression 
in  reference  thereto,  shall  not  be  a  sufficient  ground  of 
challenge  for  principal  cause  to  any  person  who  is  other- 
wise legally  qualified  to  serve  as  a  juror  upon  the  trial  of 
such  action,  provided  the  person  proposed  as  a  juror  who 
may  have  formed  or  expressed  or  has  such  an  opinion  or 
impression  as  aforesaid  shall  declare  on  oath  that  he  verily 
believes  that  he  can  render  an  impartial  verdict  according 
to  the  evidence  submitted  to  the  jury  on  such  trial,  and 
that  such  previously  formed  opinion  or  impression  will 
not  bias  or  influence  his  verdict,  and  provided  the  court 
shall  be  satisfied  that  the  person  so  proposed  as  a  juror 
does  not  entertain  such  a  present  'opinion  as  would  influ- 
ence his  verdict  as  a  juror.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  inten- 
tion of  the  act  was  not  to  place  partial  jurors  upon  the 
panel,  but  that  great  care  was  taken  to  prevent  such  a 
result.  The  end  sought  by  the  common  law  was  to  se- 
cure a.  panel  that  would  impartially  hear  th'e  evidence, 
and  render  a  verdict  thereon  uninfluenced  by  any 
extraneous  considerations  whatever.  If  the  person  pro- 
posed as  a  juror  can  and  will  do  this,  the  entire  purpose  is 
accomplished.  To  secure  this  the  statute  requires  that 
he  shall  make  oath  that  he  can  do  this,  irrespective  of 
any  previous  or  existing  opinion  or  impression.  Not 
satisfied  that  this  may  be  safely  relied  upon,  on  account 
of  the  difficulty  of  determining  by  a  person  having  an 
opinion  or  impression  how  far  he  may  be  unconsciously 
influenced  thereby,  the  statute  goes  further  and  provides 
that  the  court  shall  be  satisfied  that  the  person  proposed 
as  a  juror  does  not  entertain  such  a  present  opinion  as 
would  influence  his  verdict  as  a  juror.  Surely  this  latter 
provision,  if  rightly  and  intelligently  administered  by  a 
competent  court,  will  afford  protection  to  the  accused 
from  injury  from  a  partial  jury.  But  the  accused  has  not 
only  this  but  the  further  protection  in  his  right,  after 
challenge  for  principal  cause  has  been  overruled, 
again  to  challenge  for  favor,  and  have  this  tried  and  de- 
termined, uninfluenced  by  the  decision  made  by  the  for- 
mer challenge.  While  the  constitution  secures  the  right 
of  trial  by  an  impartial  jury,  either  common  or  statutory, 
principally  the  latter,  and  it  is  within  the  power  of  the 


146 

legislature  to  make,  from  time  to  time,  such  changes  in 
the  law  as  it  may  deem  expedient,  taking  careMo  preserve 
the  right  of  trial  by  an  impartial  jury.  The  opinion  of 
Chief  Justice  Nicholson,  in  Eason  v.  The  State  of  Ten- 
nessee^ is  cited  in  opposition  to  this  view.  This  opinion 
was  given  upon  the  constitutionality  of  a  statute  of  Ten- 
nessee upon  the  same  subject,  but  differing  from  that  in 
this  state.  By  the  Tennessee  statute  it  is  provided  that 
the  juror  shall  be  competent,  if  he  state  on  oath  that,  upon 
the  law  and  testimony  on  trial,  he  believes  he  can  give 
the  accused  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict.  The  statement 
is  made  conclusive  of  the  question." 

The  case  of  Thomas  v.  The  People,  67  New  York, 
220,  holds  that  under  the  act  of  1873  the  Court  of  Ap- 
peals has  power  to  reverse  the  action  of  the  trial  court 
upon  a  challenge  for  favor. 

"  We  have,  therefore,  the  same  power  to  pass  upon 
the  question  involved  in  the  challenge  for  favor  which  the 
trial  court  had,  and  the  question  to  be  determined  is,  was 
the  juror  indifferent  within  the  rule  of  law  applicable  to 
such  a  case?  He  had  heard  the  matter  talked  about, 
and  has  an  impression  or  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  prisoner.  That  impression  or  opinion  de- 
pended upon  the  truth  of  what  he  had  heard;  and  he  tes- 
tified that  he  would  decide  the  case  upon  the  evidence, 
and  that  he  believed  that  he  could  render  an  impartial 
verdict  upon  the  evidence,  unbiased  and  uninfluenced  by 
his  impressions.  Upon  such  a  state  of  facts  the  court 
properly  held  the  juror  indifferent.  At  least,  we  cannot 
say  that  the  court,  having  the  juror  in  its  presence,  and 
able  to  judge  somewhat  from  his  appearance,  erred  in  its 
decision.  He  had  an  opinion  which  depended  upon  the 
truth  of  what  he  had  heard.  As  a  juror  he  was  to  find 
the  truth  of  the  case,  and  such  an  opinion  as  he  had 
would  in  no  way  interfere  with  his  impartial  search  after 
it.  The  exclusion  of  a  juror  in  such  a  case,  in  these  days 
of  general  intelligence  and  newspaper  circulation,  would 
render  it  impracticable  in  many  cases  to  obtain  a  competent 
jury  for  the  trial  of  persons  charged  with  flagrant  and 
notorious  crimes:" 


What  the  juror  said  appears  upon  page  220  of  the 
opinion: 

"  George  J.  DeWitt  was  called  as  a  juror  and  was 
challenged  by  the  prisoner  for  principal  cause,  and  upon 
being  sworn  testified  that  he  had  heard  the  killing  talked 
about,  had  expressed  an  opinion  of  the  affair  from  what 
he  had  heard  talked,  and  then  had  an  impression  or 
opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner  if 
what  he  heard  was  true;  that  he  thought  it  would  take 
evidence  to  remove  that  impression  and  that  he  would  not 
go  into  the  jury-box  entirely  unbiased;  that  the  impres- 
sion depended  entirely  on  the  supposition  that  what  he 
had  heard  was  true;  that  if  he  went  into  the  jury-box  he 
would  decide  the  case  on  the  evidence  given,  and  that  he 
believed  if  he  was  sworn  as  a  juror  he  could  render  an 
impartial  verdict  upon  the  evidence,  unbiased  or  influenced 
by  any  impression  or  opinion  which  he  then  had.  The 
court  then  overruled  the  challenge.  The  prisoner  then 
challenged  the  juror  for  favor,  and  that  challenge  was 
also  overruled." 

In  the  case  of  P helps  v.  The  People,  72  New  York, 
363,  the  court  uses  this  language: 

"  The  challenge  of  the  juror  Lamb  was  properly  over- 
ruled. Though  some  of  his  answers,  taken  separately, 
•would  perhaps  have  established  a  disqualification,  yet  the 
effect  of  all  that  he  said  was  to  show  him  a  proper  juror 
under  the  late  statute" 

The  examination  of  the  juror  appears  upon  page  339. 
We  call  attention  to  it,  as  it  is  in  many  respects  similar  to 
the  examination  of  the  talesmen  to  which  complaint  is 
made  in  this  case. 

The  case  of  Greenfield  v.  The  People,  74  New  York, 
277,  is  a  case  in  which  the  court  held  a  juror  incompetent, 
and  place  their  decision  expressly  upon  the  ground  that 
the  opinion  which  he  had  found  was  based  upon  reports 
of  a  previous  trial  of  the  same  prisoner  for  the  same- 


148 

offense,  the  court  drawing  a  distinction  between  an  opin- 
ion based  upon  rumor  or  ordinary  newspaper  reports 
and  the  reports  of  the  evidence  of  a  trial. 

In  the  case  of  Balbo  v.  The  People^  80  New  York,  484: 

"  i.  The  juror,  Betts,  was  challenged  by  the  prisoner 
for  principal  cause,  and  was  examined  in  support  of  the 
challenge  which  was  overruled,  and  the  juror  was  there- 
upon challenged  by  the  prisoner  for  favor.  The  juror 
was  further  examined  on  the  challenge  for  favor,  which 
was  also  overruled  by  the  court  and  the  prisoner  ex- 
cepted.  The  juror  on  his  examination  in  chief  testified,  in 
substance,  that  he  read  at  the  time  in  a  newspaper  an  ac- 
count of  the  murder,  and  that  he  was  of  impression  that 
the  account  he  read  was  the  report  of  the  testimony  taken 
before  the  coroner's  inquest,  and  that  he  had  not  talked 
the  matter  over  with  any  person.  In  answer  to  a  leading 
question  put  to  him  by  the  prisoner's  counsel,  he  said  that 
he  formed  at  the  time  a  positive  and  clearly  marked 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused, 
which  opinion  was  still  in  his  mind,  and  that  it  would  re- 
quire strong  evidence  to  remove  the  opinion  he  then  en- 
tertained. The  prisoner  was  an  Italian,  and  the  juror, 
in  answer  to  a  question  whether  he  had  any  prejudice 
in  favor  of  or  against  the  Italians  as  a  race,  said:  'That 
it  was  a  race  that  he  was  not  particularly  fond  of,  and 
did  not  think  much  of,  judging  from  those  we  had  here.' 
On  cross-examination  by  the  district  attorney,  the  juror 
said  that  he  read  the  newspapers  every  day  and  read  the 
account  of  this  murder  in  the  same  way  he  read  other 
items;  that  he  took  no  particular  interest  in  the  case; 
that  he  did  not  know  any  of  the  parties  connected 
with  the  transaction,  and  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
circumstances,  except  as  he  had  read  them  at  the 
time;  that  if  a  statement  in  the  papers  was  contradicted 
in  the  next  day's  papers  he  believed  the  contradiction; 
that  his  impression  in  the  case  was  based  on  the  assump- 
tion that  things  reported  are  probably  true;  that  he  did 
not  make  a  great  deal  of  distinction  between  an  opinion 
and  an  impression;  that  he  should  call  an  opinion  of  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  a  statement  he  saw  in  a  newspaper 


an  impression,  if  he  read  it  casuallv  and  it  slipped  out  of 
his  mind,  and  is  afterwards  revived;  that  he  did  not  know 
that  he  had  anything  more  than  that  in  his  mind  about 
the  case;  that  he  did  not  know  what  the  defense  was,  and 
that  all  he  remembered  was  that  a  man  killed  his  wife  in 
Rose  street.  The  juror  on  his  examination  on  the  chal- 
lenge for  principal  cause  said  that  he  was  not  conscious 
of  having  any  impression  which  would  prevent  his  acting 
fairly  and  impartially  in  the  case,  and  that  he  had  no 
doubt  that  he  could  give  a  verdict  upon  the  evidence 
without  being  influenced  or  biased  by  any  opinion  he  had. 
At  the  conclusion  of  his  examination  by  counsel  on  the 
challenge  to  the  favor,  the  juror,  in  response  to  a  question 
of  the  court,  said  that  he  did  not  suppose  that  any 
opinion  he  had  would  bias,  influence  or  prejudice  him  in  • 
any  manner  in  the  consideration  of  the  evidence;  that  he 
believed  it  would  not,  and  that  he  could  give  full  weight 
and  effect  to  the  evidence  the  same  as  though  he  had  no 
opinion.  The  record  states  that  the  court  thereupon, 
'  from  observation  of  the  appearance  of  the  juror,  his  age, 
intelligence,  his  manner  on  the  stand,  and  his  answers  to 
questions,  found  that  he  was  fair,  impartial  and  unprej- 
udiced, and  held  the  challenge  not  proved,'  and  he  was 
thereupon  sworn  as  a  juror. 

"  In  determining  the  question  whether  the  court  erred 
in  overruling  the  challenge,  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind 
the  changes  which  had  been  wrought  by  the  acts  chapter 
475  of  the  laws  of  1872,  and  chapter  427  of  the  laws  of 
1873,  in  respect  to  the  legal  sufficiency  of  certain  causes 
of  challenge  to  jurors,  and  in  respect  to  the  power  of 
the  court  on  appeal  to  review  the  decision  of  the  trial 
court  in  allowing  or  overruling  challenges.  Prior  to 
these  statutes  it  was  the  established  rule  that  a  fixed  and 
settled  opinion  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  a  prisoner  was 
a  good  cause  of  principal  challenge,  and  operated  in  law 
as  a  disqualification  of  a  juror,  and  it  was  held  not  to  be 
material  how  or  upon  what  evidence  the  opinion  was 
formed,  provided  it  was  fixed  and  definite,  nor  was  the 
disqualification  removed,  although  the  juror  should  state 
upon  his  oath  that  he  believed  that  he  could  decide  the 
case  fairly  and  impartially  upon  the  evidence  without  bias 
or  prejudice  from  the  opinion  he  had  previously  formed. 


150 

(Ex  parte  Vcrmillea,  6  Cow.,  555;  People  v.^Mather,  5 
Wend.,  232;  Freeman  \.  People,  4  Denio,  9;  Cancemi  v. 
People,  16  N.  Y.,  501.)  'The  law,'  said  MARCV,  J.,  in 
People  v.  Mather,  <  attaches  the  disqualification  to  the 
fact  of  forming  and  expressing  an  opinion,  and  does  not 
look  beyond  to  examine  the  occasion  or  weigh  the  evi- 
dence upon  which  the  evidence  is  founded.'  The  rule  that 
an  opinion  formed  by  a  juror  upon  the  guilt  or  innocence 
of  a  prisoner  operated  as  a  disqualification  was  based 
upon  the  theory  that  such  a  prepossession  of  the  mind 
was  inconsistent  with  the  exercise  by  a  juror  of  a  free  and 
impartial  judgment  of  the  case  upon  the  evidence,  and  the 
declaration  of  a  juror  that  he  believed  he  could  decide  the 
case  uninfluenced  by  his  previous  opinion  was  held  not 
•  to  remove  the  objection,  for  the  reason  assigned  by  Ch. 
'J.  Marshall  (i  Burr's  Trial,  416),  that  'the  law  will  not 
trust  him.'  But  it  was  held  in  many  cases  before  the  re- 
cent statutes,  that  a  hypothetical  opinion  or  an  expression 
simply  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  prisoner  derived 
from  rumor  or  from  reading  newspaper  accounts  of  the 
transaction  was  not  a  cause  of  principal  challenge,  but  the 
fact  might  be  considered  by  the  triers  on  a  challenge  to 
the  favor,  and  their  decision  on  the  question  of  indiffer- 
ency  was  final  and  not  the  subject  of  review.  (Bodine  v. 
People,  i  Uenio,  281;  People  v.  Honey  man,  3  id.,  121; 
Freeman  v.  People,  4  id.,  9;  Bryan  v.  People,  36  N.  Y., 
279;  People  v.  Thompson,  41  id.,  i.) 

"The  act  of  1872  was  a  clear  departure  from 
the  law  governing  challenges  for  cause  as  it  had 
been  previously  declared  by  the  courts.  It  ab- 
rogates the  rule  that  the  formation  or  expres- 
sion by  a  proposed  juror  of  an  opinion  of  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused  is  -per  se  a  disqualifica- 
tion, and  sufficient  in  taw  to  sustain  a  challenge  for  prin- 
cipal cause.  The  act  declares  that  '  the  previous  forma- 
tion or  expression  of  an  opinion  or  impression  iti  reference 
to  the  circumstances  upon  which  any  criminal  action  at 
law  is  based,  or  in  reference  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of 
the  prisoner,  or  a  present  opinion  or  impression  in  refer- 
ence thereto,  shall  not  be  a  sufficient  ground  of  challenge 
for  principal  cause,  to  any  person  who  is  otherwise 
legally  qualified  to  serve  as  a  juror  upon  a  trial  of  such 


action,  provided  the  person  proposed  as  a  juror,  who  may 
have  formed  or  expressed,  or  has  such  opinion  or  impres- 
sion as  aforesaid,  shall  declare  on  oath  that  he  verily  be- 
lieves that  he  can  render  an  impartial  verdict  according  to 
the  evidence  submitted  to  the  jury  on  such  trial,  and  that 
such  previously  formed  opinion  or  impression  will  not 
bias  or  influence  his  verdict;  and  provided  the  court  shall 
be  satisfied  that  the  person  so  proposed  as  a  juror  does 
not  entertain  such  a  present  opinion  as  would  influence 
his  verdict  as  a  juror.'  The  act  of  1873,  passed  the  fol- 
lowing year,  makes  a  further  change  in  the  previous  law, 
by  making  all  challenges  triable  by  the  court,  and  confers, 
as  was  held  in  The  People  v.  Thomas,  67  N.  Y.,  218, 
upon  an  appellate  tribunal  the  right  to  review  upon  the 
facts  the  determination  of  the  trial  court. 

"  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  act  of  1872  proceeds 
upon  a  different  theory  from  that  upon  which  courts  and 
judges  have  acted  in  the  decisions  to  which  we  have 
referred.  It  does  not  deny  the  principle  which  has  its 
foundation  in  natural  justice,  that  jurors  upon  whose 
judgment  may  depend  the  lives  or  liberty  of  indi- 
viduals accused  of  crime  should  be  impartial  and 
free  from  any  existing  bias  which  may  influence 
their  judgment.  The  language  of  Lord  Coke,  often 
quoted,  '  that  the  juror  must  stand  indifferent  as  he  stands 
unsworn,'  expresses  a  rule  of  justice,  as  well  as  a  rule  of 
law.  But  the  statute  of  1872  assumes  that  a  man  may  be 
a  fair  and  impartial  juror  although  he  has  an  opinion  of 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused,  and  that  it  is  possible 
that  he  may  notwithstanding  be  able  to  set  aside  and 
disregard  such  opinion,  and  weigh  the  evidence  and  de- 
termine the  question  of  guilt  or  innocence  independently 
thereof,  and  uninfluenced  thereby.  It  is  not  for  the 
court  to  pass  upon  the  correctness  of  this  assumption. 
But  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  it  is  contrary  to  hu- 
man experience  or  the  principles  of  human  philosophy,  or 
that  it  may  not  frequently  happen  that  persons  who  have 
formed  opinions  of  the  guilt  of  an  accused  person  from 
reports  or  statements,  verbal*  or  written,  may  not  as 
jurors  lay  aside  their  prepossessions,  and  not  only  honestly 
and  conscientiously  endeavor  to  hear  and  decide  the  case 
upon  the  evidence  alone,  but  be  able  in  fact  to  divcsi 


152 

themselves  of  the  influence  of  their  previous  opinions.  It 
may,  I  think,  be  safely  affirmed  that  the  consciousness  of 
such  prepossessions  would  in  many  cases  induce  .on  the 
part  of  jurors  a  more  cautious  consideration  and  a  more 
charitable  construction  of  the  evidence  against  the  pris- 
oner. The  act  of  1872,  however,  makes  the  court  the 
ultimate  judge  upon  this  question.  If  the  juror,  on  being 
challenged  for  principal  cause,  discloses  on  his  examina- 
tion that  he  has  a  fixed  and  definite  opinion  in  the  case  on 
the  merits,  and  nothing  further  is  shown,  then  the  rule  of 
law  which  existed  prior  to  the  statute  of  1872  applies, 
and  the  court  would  be  bound  as  matter  of  law  to  reject 
him  as  incompetent.  But  if  in  addition  he  states  upon 
oath  that  he  believes  he  can  render  an  impartial  verdict 
upon  the  evidence,  and  that  such  previously  formed  opin- 
ion will  not  bias  or  influence  him  as  a  juror,  the  question 
of  his  competency  is  then  to  be  determined  by  the  court 
as  a  question  of  fact.  In  determining  the  question  the 
declaration  of  the  juror  is  to  be  considered,  but  it  is 
not  controlling.  But  the  decision  of  the  trial  judge 
is  subject  to  the  supervisory  jurisdiction  of  the  court  upon 
appeal,  and  the  appellate  tribunal  in  reviewing  it  is  bound 
to  say  on  its  own  responsibility  upon  a  fresh  examination 
of  the  evidence,  giving  due  weight  to  the  circumstance 
that  the  trial  judge  had  the  juror  before  him,  whether  in 
its  judgment  the  question  of  fact  was  properly  decided. 
In  reviewing  the  decision  of  the  trial  judge  no  certain 
rule  can  be  laid  down  by  which  the  appellate  court  is  to 
be  guided.  The  determination  of  the  question  presented 
must  depend,  in  a  great  measure,  upon  the  circumstances 
of  the  particular  case.  The  cardinal  rule,  that  the  ac- 
cused is  entitled  to  be  tried  by  a  fair  and  impartial  jury, 
is '  always  to  be  borne  in  mind.  There  may  be  cases 
where  the  opinion  of  the  juror  has  been  formed  under 
circumstances  which,  in  the  judgment  of  all  reasonable 
men,  will  prevent  him,  however  conscientious  he  may  be, 
from  judging  and  deciding  the  case  irrespective  of  his 
prepossessions.  The  case  of  a  juror  who  was  an  eye- 
witness to  the  transaction,  or  whose  opinion  was  formed 
upon  his  personal  knowledge  of  the  criminating  facts,  are 
examples.  The  circumstances  under  which  the  opinion 
was  formed,  its  strength,  the  fact  whether  the  juror  has 


153 

any  personal  feeling  against  the  prisoner,  or  exhibits  any 
pride  of  opinion  which  may  lead  him  to  give  too  little  or 
too  much  weight  to  evidence  in  favor  of  or  against  the 
accused;  these  and  many  other  considerations  will  enter 
into  the  judgment  of  the  court  in  passing  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  the  juror's  competency.  In  short,  under  the 
statute  of  1872,  the  competency  of  a  juror  who  has  formed 
an  opinion  is  in  all  cases  a  question  of  fact  and  not  of  law 
when  he  makes  the  declaration  specified  in  that  statute. 
This  fact  is  to  be  determined  in  the  first  instance  by  the 
trial  judge,  and  afterwards,  in  case  of  appeal,  by  the  court 
of  review. 

"The  cases  of  The  People  v.  Thomas,  67  N.  Y.,  218, 
and  The  People  v.  Greenfield,  74  id.,  277,  illustrate  the 
function  of -this  court  in  reviewing  the  decision  of  a  trial 
judge  upon  challenges  to  jurors,  under  the  acts  of  1872 
and  1873.  I"  tne  Thomas  case,  the  decision  of  the  trial 
judge  was  affirmed,  and  in  the  Greenfield  case  his  decision 
was  reversed.  The  opinion  of  the  juror  in  the  Thomas 
case  was  not  fixed  and  absolute,  but  was  hypothetical, 
and  no  circumstances  were  shown  which  created  any  doubt 
upon  the  part  of  the  court  of  his  ability  to  decide  the  case 
upon  the  evidence  impartially,  without  bias  from  his  pre- 
vious impression.  In  the  Greenfield  case  there  was,  as  is 
stated  in  the  opinion,  no  question  of  law  involved,  but 
merely  a  question  of  fact,  viz.:  whether,  upon  the  evi- 
dence and  surrounding  circumstances,  the  jurors  Betts  and 
Jennings  were  fair  and  impartial  jurors.  The  case  had 
been  once  tried  and  the  jury  had  disagreed.  It  had  ex- 
cited great  interest  in  the  community  where  the  crime 
charged  was  committed.  The  fact  that  there  had  been  a 
felonious  homicide  was  admitted.  The  question  to  be 
tried  was  whether  it  was  committed  by  the  prisoner, 
and  this  depended  upon  circumstantial  evidence.  The 
jurors  challenged  lived  near  the  scene  of  the  mur- 
der. They  had  heard  the  circumstances  of  the  crime 
talked  about,  and  had  read  part  of  the  published 
testimony  on  the  first  trial,  and  each  had  an  impres- 
sion or  opinion  of  the  guilt  of  the  accused  which 
would  require  evidence  to  remove.  This  court,  upon  a 
review  and  consideration  of  the  facts  disclosed  in  that 
case,  were  of  opinion  that  the  challenges  should  in  the 


154 

exercise  of  a  discreet  and  careful  judgment  have  been 
sustained,  and  the  conviction  was  for  this  reabon  reversed. 
In  the  Thomas  case  this  court  was  of  opinion  that  the  de- 
cision of  the  trial  judge  on  the  challenge  was  justified  by 
the  facts,  and  in  the  Greenfield  case  that  there  was  at 
least  so  much  doubt  in  respect  to  the  competency  of  the 
jurors  challenged  that  the  challenges  should  have  been 
sustained.  The  cases  are  entirely  harmonious  and  con- 
sistent, the  court  upon  different  facts  reaching  different 
conclusions  in  the  respective  cases. 

"  In  the  case  now  before  us,  we  are  of  opinion  that  the 
challenges  to  the  juror  Betts  were  properly  overruled. 
Such  opinion  as  he  had  was  formed  without  reflection, 
upon  a  casual  reading  of  a  newspaper  report  of  the  testi- 
mony before  the  coroner  some  months  before  the  trial. 
He  evidently  had  no  personal  prejudice  against  the 
prisoner  and  had  taken  no  particular  interest  in  the  case. 
The  opinion,  if  it  was  anything  more  than  an  impression, 
was  a  hastily  formed  judgment  upon  statements  which  he 
assumed  to  be  true  from  seeing  them  in  a  news- 
paper, but  there  was  apparently  no  such  prejudgment 
as  would  prevent  him  as  a  juror  from  deciding  the 
case  fairly  and  impartially  upon  the  evidence.  The  stat- 
utes of  1872  and  1873  were  passed  to  facilitate  the  selec- 
tion of  jurors,  which  in  some  cases  was  attended  with 
great  difficulty  and  delay  by  reason  of  the  stringent  rule 
which  had  obtained  as  to  the  disqualifying  effect  of  an 
opinion  formed  in  the  case.  But  the  legislature  did  not 
intend  to  interfere  with  the  fundamental  right  of  an  ac- 
cused person  to  be  tried  by  a  fair  and  impartial  jury. 
And,  if  in  exercising  the  jurisdiction  and  powers  conferred 
by  those  statutes,  courts  and  judges  proceed  on  the 
humane  principle  of  the  common  law,  giving  to  the  pris- 
oner the  benefit  of  a  reasonable  doubt,  there  will  be  little 
difficulty  in  so  administering  the  law  that  the  purpose  of 
the  statute  will  be  attained  without  subjecting  accused 
persons  to  the  peril  and  injustice  of  being  tried  by  pre- 
judiced jurors. 

"  Thejact  that  the  juror  ina\  have  hare  had  sonic  prej- 
udice against  I  he  Italian  race  was  HO/,  -we  think,  a  dis- 
(/italij\in<r  circumstance.  An  opinion  that  the  prisoner's 
character  was  bad  is  not  a  ground  of  principal  challenge. 


155 

{People  v.  Lohman,  I  N.  Y.,  379;  People  v.  Alien,  43  id., 
28).  The  fact  that  the  juror  did  not  like  the  race  to 
which  the  prisoner  belonged  was  quite  too  inconclusive  to 
justify  a  finding  that  he  was  incompetent." 

The  examination  of  this  juror  appeared  at  pages  486  to 
489,  and  is  identical  in  many  respects  with  that  of  the 
talesman  complained  of  in  this  case. 

In  the  case  of  Cox  v.  The  People,  80  New  York,  512, 
the  court  say: 

"Two  jurors,  Adolph  Dumahout  and  Albert  W.  How- 
ard, were  challenged  for  cause  and  for  favor,  and  were  ex- 
amined on  the  challenges  and  the  challenges  were  over- 
ruled. It  is  conceded  that  if  the  challenges  to  the  juror 
Howard  were  properly  overruled,  the  challenges  to  the 
juror  Dumahout  were  properly  overruled  also.  It  will 
only  be  necessary,  therefore,  to  consider  the  propriety  of 
the  ruling  in  the  case  of  Howard.  He  testified  on  his 
voir  dire  examination  by  the  prisoner's  counsel  that  he  had 
read  of  the  case,  and  had  formed  a  decided  opinion  as  to 
the  guilt  of  the  accused,  which  it  would  require  evidence 
to  remove,  and  if  sworn  as  a  juror  he  would  enter  the  jury- 
box  with  this  opinion.  On  his  examination  by  the  district 
attorney  he  testified  in  substance  that  his  opinion  was 
formed  from  having  read  in  the  newspapers  accounts  of 
the  transaction,  and  among  other  things  a  statement  pur- 
porting to  be  a  confession  by  the  prisoner  of  the  crime, 
and  that  he  accepted  these  accounts  as  true,  for  the  reason 
that  he  had  read  nothing  to  the  contrary,  and  that  he  be- 
lieved statements  in  the  newspapers  which  were  not 
unreasonable  until  they  were  contradicted,  and  that  in  that 
sense  he  had  an  opinion  of  the  guilt  of  the  prisoner;  that  he 
had  no  knowledge  whether  the  statements  he  read  were 
true  or  not,  and  that  his  opinion  was  a  contingent  one,  based 
upon  the  supposed  truth  of  the  statements  read;  that  he 
had  no  pride  of  opinion  and  had  no  doubt  of  his  ability 
to  set  aside  the  opinion  he  had  on  entering  the  jury-box 
and  decide  the  case  according  to  the  evidence  submitted, 
without  being  influenced  thereby,  or  by  what  he  had  read. 
We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  challenge  was  properly 


1 56 

overruled.  Under  the  statutes  of  1872  and  1873  the  fact 
that  a  proposed  juror  has  formed  an  opinioh  of  the  guilt 
or  innocence  of  the  prisoner  is  no  longer  in  any  sense  a 
legal  disqualification,  provided  the  juror  makes  the  decla- 
ration specified  in  the  statute  of  1872.  If  he  makes  such 
declaration,  then  his  competency  becomes  a  question  of 
fact  to  be  determined  by  the  trial  judge,  subject,  however, 
to  review  by  the  appellate  tribunal." 

To  the  same  effect  are  the  cases  of: 

Abbott  v.  The  People,  86  N.  Y.,  460. 
.  Cometh  v.  The  People,  92  N.  Y.,  85. 
People,  ex  rcl.  Oyer  &    Term.,  83  N.  Y., 

436. 
People  v.  Otto,  101  N.  Y.,  690. 

The  effect  of  the  New  York  statute  and  that  of  our 
own  is  identical,  and  we  insist  that  the  action  of  the  court 
in  refusing  the  challenges  to  the  talesmen  objected  to  is 
sustained  by  the  authority  of  those  cases.  It  is  claimed, 
however,  that  our  statute  does  not  provide  that  the  for- 
mation and  expression  of  an  opinion  shall  not  disqualify- 
It  is  true  that  the  statute  does  not  in  terms  provide  that, 
but  it  does  in  effect,  the  language  being:  "The  fact  that 
"  a  person  called  as  a  juror  has  formed  an  opinion  or  im- 
"  pression  based  upon  rumor  or  newspaper  statements 
"  (about  the  truth  of  which  he  has  expressed  no  opinion) 
"  shall  not  disqualify  him." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  statute  has  provided  as  to 
what  expression  should  disqualify,  and  that  the  only  ex- 
pression which  does  disqualify  is  an  expression  as  to 
the  truth  of  the  rumor  or  statements,  and  not  the  ex- 
pression as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence. 

The  case  of  Stevens  v.  The  People,  38  Mich.,  739,  cited 
by  counsel  in  their  brief,  in  no  way  conflicts  with  this 


position.  The  statute  in  Michigan  is  identical  with  that 
of  New  York.  The  prosecution  in  that  case  was  for 
keeping  a  house  of  prostitution.  Six  of  the  jurors  stated 
that  they  had  formed  an  opinion  from  what  they  had 
heard  and  from  reputation  that  the  house  kept  by  the 
defendant  was  a  house  of  prostitution,  and  that  their 
opinions  or  impressions  were  of  a  character  that  it  would 
require  evidence  to  remove.  Upon  the  jurors'  statement 
that  they  believed  they  could  decide  impartially,  the  court 
refused  to  permit  any  other  questions  to  be  put,  and  held 
that  the  fact  of  their  making  that  statement  of  itself 
rendered  them  competent.  It  will  be  noted  that  where 
the  prosecution  is  for  keeping  a  house  of  prostitution,  evi- 
dence of  general  reputation  of  the  house  is  admissible. 
If  the  jurors  knew  that  the  reputation  of  the  house  was 
of  that  character,  they  were  competent  witnesses  in  the 
case.  The  court  hold  that  the  challenge  made  in  the  case 
should  have  been  regarded  by  the  court  as  covering  the 
whole  ground  of  challenge  for  principal  cause  and  also 
for  favor,  and  that  he  should  have  found  whether  or  not, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  jury  stood  indifferent,  and  because 
the  court  had  not  done  that  reversed  the  case.  In  this 
case  the  question  of  the  bias  or  partiality  of  the  jurors 
was  in  every  instance  gone  into.  In  other  words,  the 
challenge  for  favor  was  recognized  and  was  passed  upon. 
The  court  saw  the  jurors,  heard  their  answers,  knew  their 
business,  observed  their  demeanor,  and  in  overruling  the 
challenge  held  that  in  his  opinion  that  they  stood  indiffer- 
ent between  the  parties. 

It  is  contended  also  that  under  the  statute,  where  the 
talesman,  upon  his  examination,  states  that  he  has  an 
opinion  as  to  the  truth  of  the  rumor  or  newspaper  state- 
ments, that  that  disqualifies  him  for  service.  An  inspec- 


tion  of  the   statute  will   show  that   this   contention  is  not 

V 

well  founded.  The  language  of  the  statute  Is  "  about  the 
"  truth  of  which  he  has  expressed  no  opinion,"  not  about 
the  truth  of  which  he  expresses  no  opinion,  thus  clearly 
referring  to  an  expression  of  opinion  made  prior  to  his 
examination  in  court. 

We  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  the  case  of  the 
People  v.  Mahoncv,  18  Cal.,  183,  as  being  decisive  of 
many  of  the  objections  raised  in  this  case.  A  juror  named 
Dundass  was  challenged  for  implied  bias,  which  was  the 
same  thing  as  a  challenge  for  favor.  He  testified  as 
follows: 

"I  have  resided  in  San  Francisco  since  1851;  recollect 
reading  in  the  newspapers  about  the  defendant,  and  his 
being  sent  away  by  the  vigilance  committee;  recollect 
hearing  about  defendant  as  a  bad  man,  in  connection  with 
the  vigilance  committee  of  1856;  I  have  impressions  upon 
my  mind,  derived  from  the  newspapers  and  from  hearing 
about  defendant;  it  might  require  evidence  to  remove 
these  .impressions;  these  impressions  are  that  defendant  is 
a  bad  man;  unless  there  was  some  evidence  to  remove 
them,  I  suppose  these  impressions  would  remain;  I  don't 
think  'these  impressions  would  make  any  difference;  I 
have  now  an  impression  that  he  must  have  been  a  bad 
man,  or  he  would  not  have  been  sent  off;  I  should  think 
him  more  likely  to  be  guilty  of  a  crime  than  a  man 
against  whom  I  had  not  heard  these  things;  I  am  not 
conscious  of  any  prejudice  against  the  defendant,  or  any 
bias  which  would  prevent  me  from  giving  him  a  fair  trial; 
I  should  endeavor  to  be  governed  by  the  evidence." 
*  *  *  *  * 

The  court  says:  "There  was  no  error  in  the  refusal  to 
reject  the  juror  Dundass  for  implied  bias." 

Complaint  is  also  made  that  the  court  refused,  although 
at  the  time  no  objection  was  made  to  it  by  the  representa- 


159 

live  for  the  state,  to  permit  the   following    question  to  be 
asked  of  the  jurors: 

"  Suppose  it  should  appear  in  evidence  that  the  meeting 
held  at  the  Hay  market  square  was  a  meeting  called  by 
socialists  or  anarchists,  and  was  attended  by  them  and 
others;  suppose  that  it  should  further  appear  that  the 
bomb  which  is  alleged  to  have  produced  the  death  of  Mr. 
Degan  was  thrown  by  some  one  in  sympathy  with  the 
socialists  or  anarchists;  now,  I  will  ask  you,  provided  it 
was  not  established  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  these 
defendants  actually  threw  the  bomb,  or  that  they  aided, 
participated  in  or  advised  the  commission  of  that  wrong, 
would  the  fact  that  they  were  socialists  or  communists  have 
any  influence  upon  your  mind  in  determining  their  inno- 
cence?" 

We  submit  that  if  the  court  had  permitted  this  question 
to  be  asked  it  would  have  been  grossly  erroneous.  The 
case  itself  is  one  depending  largely  upon  circumstantial 
evidence.  In  passing  upon  the  question  of  the  guilt  or 
the  innocence  of  the  defendants,  the  jury  had  the  right  to 
take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  they  were  socialists. 
Suppose  that  one  of  the  defendants  had  been  a  Quaker, 
who  all  his  life  had  been  preaching  peaceable  methods, 
opposed  to  force  of  every  sort  and  kind,  would  not  the 
Jury  have  been  justified  in  taking  that  into  consideration 
in  determining  the  question  of  his  guilt  or  innocence  of 
an  act  involving  the  use  of  force  and  the  taking  of  life?  Inas- 
much as  the  fact  that  the  defendants  were  anarchists  and 
socialists  was  a  fact  which  the  jury  had  the  right  to  con- 
sider in  arriving  at  their  conclusion,  the  counsel  for  the 
defense  had  no  right  to  pledge  the  jurors  upon  oath  before- 
hand that  they  would  not  take  that  fact  into  consideration. 
If  any  other  rule  should  be  adopted  in  any  case  depending 
upon  circumstantial  evidence,  counsel  representing  the  pris- 
oners could  succeed  in  procuring  a  jury  pledge  under  oath 
to  pay  no  attention  to  any  one  of  the  chain  of  circum- 


i6o 

stances  which  constituted  the  proof.  We  submit  that  up- 
on the  examination  of  a  juror  no  question'- is  competent 
which  requires  him  to  make  a  pledge  as  to  what  he  will 
do  or  will  not  do,  or  as  to  what  weight  he  will  give  01 
will  not  give  to  any  circumstances  which  may  be  intro- 
duced in  evidence,  and  which  has  a  bearing  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  guilt  or  innocence.  The  juror  should  be  left  free 
to  consider  the  whole  evidence,  and  be  left  to  give  what- 
ever weight,  after  hearing  all  of  the  evidence,  he  thinks 
should  be  given  to  any  particular  fact  appearing. 


(3.)     WHAT  is  AN  IMPARTIAL  JURY? 

What  is  an  impartial  jury?  Defendants  could  hardly 
expect  to  be  tried  by  anarchists.  Impartiality  does  not 
mean  ignorance,  want  of  information,  failure  to  read  the 
public  press,  or  imbecility. 

"  Stupidity  and  impartiality  are  not  synonymous  terms. 
A  jury  of  imbeciles  might  be  impartial,  but  that  does  not 
answer  the  requirement.  The  impartial  jury  of  the  con- 
stitution means  a  jury  of  intelligent  men,  capable  of 
weighing  and  judging  of  the  evidence  in  a  calm,  unbiased 
manner,  and  with  intellectual  capacity  and  judgment 
sufficient  to  arrive  at  a  just  conclusion.  It  is  as  much  a 
violation  of  the  intent  and  spirit  of  the  constitution  to 
try  a  defendant  before  a  jury  incapable  ot  weighing  and 
judging  of  the  evidence  properly  as  to  try  him  before  a 
jury  that  had  agreed  before  hearing  the  evidence  to  con- 
vict. The  impartial  jnrv  that  the  constitution  requires 
/.s  a  jury  of  intelligence.  If  the  stratum  of  ignorance  and 
imbecility  is  to  furnish  the  guardians  of  our  dearest  rights 
and  liberties;  if  intelligence  is  to  be  excluded  from  the 
jury-box  in  order  to  defeat  justice  and  to  protect  crime, 
then  indeed  have  we  squandered  our  inheritance  and 
failed  properly  to  administer  the  trust  of  the  fathers." 
(C.  L.  M.  &  Rep.,  Vol.  VIII,  No.  5.) 


We  claim  that  the  jury  selected  in  their  qualifications 
comply  with  the  requirements  suggested  by  the  decisions 
of  this  state,  and  that  an  analysis  of  such  decisions  upon 
the  broad  ground  of  general  principle,  and  not  from  the 
standpoint  of  some  isolated  dicta  applicable  to  the  par- 
ticular case,  will  confirm  our  premises. 

In  Baxter  v.  The  People,  3  Gil.,  376,  decided  in  1846, 
this  court  say: 

"  Although  the  books  are  full  of  cases  deciding  what 
shall  and  what  shall  not  disqualify  a  juror,  yet  the  task  of 
laying  down  a  rule  so  clear  and  distinct  as  to  leave  no  diffi- 
culty in  its  application  in  practice  is  so  difficult  that  it  has 
never  yet  been  accomplished.  The  difficulty  consists  in 
describing  that  condition  of  mind  which  the  courts  have 
considered  requisite  to  make  an  impartial  juror,  so  that  it 
might  be  comprehended  by  all.  *  *  *  Hence  the 
variety  of  modes  adopted  by  different  courts  in  laying 
down  the  rule  which  should  govern  in  determining  the 
question.  All  seem  to  agree  that  to  disqualify  a  juror,  he 
should  have  something  more  than  a  vague  and  indefinite 
impression,  not  founded  upon  facts  acknowledged  in  his 
own  mind  to  be  true,  and  yet  that  it  is  not  necessary  that 
he  should  have  so  far  prejudged  the  case  that  his  mind  is 
not  still  open  to  conviction.  *  *  *  If  the  juror  is 
already  able  to  respond  to  the  question,  if  put  to  him,  so 
as  to  satisfy  his  own  conscience,  *  Is  the  prisoner  guilty 
or  is  he  innocent?'  then  he  is  incompetent;  but  if,  from 
not  being  convinced  of  the  existence  or  non-existence  of 
certain  facts,  he  is  unable  to  determine  that  question,  then 
he  is  competent." 

In  the  above  case,  the  juror,  Leper,  said  that  he  had 
formed  and  expressed  an  opinion,  from  reports,  a  part  of 
which  he  believed;  and,  when  further  examined,  he  said 
that  the  opinion  which  he  formed  was  on  the  hypothesis 
that  the  rumors  were  true,  only  a  part  of  which  he  be- 
lieved. Therefrom  the  court  concluded  "  that  he  had  no 
"  opinion  whether  the  rumors  which  he  had  heard  were 


162 

"  true  or  false,  and  that  the  opinion  which  he  had  formed 
"  was  not  of  a  definite  and  fixed  character." 

The  Supreme  court  decided  juror  Leper  competent  in 
that  case,  and  affirmed  the  decisions  preceding  it  in  the 
Supreme  court  of  this  state. 

It  will  not  be  amiss,  in  view  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
case  at  bar,  to  quote  from  the  decision  in  Baxter  v.  The 
People  further,  as  illustrative  of  what  we  have  heretofore 
said  in  regard  to  the  difference  of  individuals  in  either 
forming  or  expressing  an  opinion.  Judge  CATOX  says  as 
follows: 

"  Hence,  it  is  not  uncommon  to  observe,  during  the  ex- 
amination of  the  counsel  on  either  side,  the  most  palpable 
contradictions  in  the  expressions  used  by  jurors  in  giving 
the  extent  of  their  opinions,  and  that,  too,  by  men  of  in- 
telligence and  integrity.  It  often  happens  that  a  juror 
may  suppose  that  his  belief  in  the  existence  of  a  certain 
fact  will  constitute  an  opinion,  when,  in  truth,  it  may  be 
.necessary  to  establish  a  great  many  other  facts  before  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  party  could  be  established.  A 
man  may  be  charged  with  murder,  and  the  juror  may 
have  no  doubt  that  the  man  alleged  to  be  murdered  was 
killed,  and  that  the  accused  killed  him,  and  yet  have  no 
sort  of  an  idea  whether  the  homicide  was  justifiable,  ex- 
cusable or  felonious.  No  one  will  pretend  that  such  a 
juror  has  an  opinion  of  the  guilt  or  innocece  of  the  ac- 
cused. If  ^uch  opinions  were  to  disqualify  jurors,  it  would 
in  very  many,  if  not  in  a  majority  of  instances,  be  utterly 
impossible  to  get  a  jury  in  these  cases;  yet  it  is  not  un- 
common for  jurors,  whose  belief  even  extends  no  further 
than  this,  to  answer  in  the  first  instance  that  they  have  an 
opinion." 

The  first  well-considered  opinion  by  the  Supreme  court 
of  this  state  upon  the  qualifications  of  jurors  may  be  found 
in  the  case  of  Smith  v.  Eamcs,  3  Scam.,  76,  decided  in 
1841,  wherein  juror  Taggert  said  that  he  had  formed 
and  expressed  an  opinion  in  relation  to  the  right  of  the 


1 63 

plaintiff  to  recover,  but  that  such  opinion  was  based  upon 
rumor  and  not  derived  from  any  knowledge  of  the  facts, 
Taggert  further  said  that  he  still  entertained  the  opinion 
as  to  which  party  ought  to  succeed  in  the  matter,  if  -what 
he  had  heard  ivas  true.  Numerous  common-law  decisions 
were  quoted  in  the  opinion. 

The  court  say : 

"  We  have  carefully  examined  all  the  cases  referred  to 
with  a  desire  to  arrive  at  some  rule  which  shall  be  suited 
to  our  condition,  which  can  be  practically  enforced,  and 
which  shall  do  no  violence  to  the  right  of  every  person  to 
a  fair  and  impartial  trial  by  jury.  There  is  not  a  perfect 
coincidence  of  views  in  the  several  cases  referred  to,  nor 
entire  harmony  of  opinion.  The  old  rule  was,  that  the 
more  a  person  knew  of  the  facts,  of  his  own  knowledge, 
the  better  qualified  was  he  to  perform  the  functions  of  a 
juror.  The  doctrine  now  is  in  England,  that  if  a  juror 
has  declared  that  the  prisoner  was  guilty,  or  will  be 
hanged,  or  the  like,  if  made. out  of  ill-will  to  him,  it  is  a 
good  cause  of  challenge;  but  if  it  was  made  from  personal 
knowledge  of  the  facts  in  the  cause  it  is  not  ground  of 
challenge.  *  *  *  If,  without  any  qualification  what- 
ever, a  juror  says  the  defendant  is  guilty,  or  the  like,  or 
that  the  plaintiff  ought  to  recover  in  the  action,  or  that  the 
verdict  ought  to  be  against  the  plaintiff,  he  would  be  dis- 
qualified, as  not  standing  impartial  between  the  parties. 
If,  on  the  contrary,  a  juror  says  that  he  has  no  prejudice 
or  bias  of  any  kind  for  or  against  either  of  the  parties; 
that  he  has  heard  rumors  in  relation  to  the  case,  but  has 
no  personal  knowledge  of  the  facts,  and  from  the  rumors 
has  formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  in  a  particular  way, 
if  they  are  true,  without  expressing  any  belief  in  the  truth, 
we  should  think  he  would  not  be  disqualified. 

"  By  hearing  reports  of  a  case,  not  from  the  witnesses, 
nor  from  the  parties,  but  from  common  fame,  and  mak- 
ing up  an  opinion  on  them,  the  juror  has  not  prejudged 
the  case,  unless  the  case  should  turn  out  to  be  precisely  as 
the  rumors  were — a  thing  very  improbable;  he  has  judged 
only  of  rumors,  varying  in  their  hue  and  color  as  they 
circulate  through  the  country.  The  human  mind  is  so 


164 

constituted  that  it  is  almost  impossible,  on  hearing  a  re- 
port freely  circulated  in  a  country  or  neighborhood,  to 
prevent  it  from  coming  to  some  conclusion  on  the  subject, 
and  this  will  always  be  the  case  while  the  human  mind 
continues  to  be  susceptible  of  impressions.  If  such  im- 
pressions become  fixed  and  ripen  into  decided  opinions, 
they  will  influence  a  man's  conduct  and  will  create,  neces- 
sarily, a  prejudice  for  or  against  the  party  towards  whom 
they  are  directed,  and  would  disqualify  him  as  a  juror. 

"  Opinions  are  formed  in  different  ways.  With  some 
their  preconceived  prejudices  are  their  opinions;  with  oth- 
ers, a  current  rumor  fixes  the  belief;  with  another  class, 
the  most  idle  gossiping  is  received  as  truth  itself;  while 
others  hesitate  long  and  demand  testimony  before  they 
will  assent  or  dissent.  Taking  mankind  as  we  find  them, 
it  may  not  be  unreasonable  to  believe  that  by  far  the 
greater  part  come  to  no  certain  conclusion  on  a  statement 
of  facts  until  they  have  evidence  of  their  existence, 
though  they  may  have  impressions  in  regard  to  them, 
which,  if  not  carefully  examined,  might  seem  to  be  fixed 
opinions,  and,  when  called  on,  it  would  be  so  stated.  A 
distinction  must  be  made  between  such  impressions  and 
opinions,  and  in  this  consists  the  rule." 

In  deciding  the  above  case,  Judge  Breese  refers  to  the 
juror  Hamilton  Morrison,  called  in  the  famous  Burr  trial. 
Said  juror  in  that  case  said  that  he  had  frequently  de- 
clared that  if  the  allegations  against  the  prisoner  were 
true,  he  was  guilty.  Judge  Marshall  accepted  such 
juror  as  an  impartial  juror. 

Juror  Taggert,  in  the  foregoing  case,  was  declared  by 
this  Supreme  court  to  be  competent. 

In  Gardner  \.  The  People,  3  Scam.,  83,  three  jurors, 
respectively,  said  that  they  had  formed  and  expressed  opin- 
ions, from  report,  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  pris- 
oner. They  still  had  an  opinion  that  the  report  was  true. 
The  court  simply,  affirms  what  it  had  already  said  in 
Smith  v.  £ames,  above — held  the  jurors  competent  and 
affirmed  the  decision  of  the  court  below. 


•65 

In  Necly  v.  The  People,  13  111.,  685,  decided  in  1852, 
Judge  Treat,  in  a  very  short  opinion,  says  that  the  jurors 
were  incompetent,  and  affirms  the  decisions  above  quoted. 

We  submit,  however,  that  this  case  is  not  a  fair  test, 
upon  the  opinion  alone,  because  it  fails  to  disclose  the  facts 
incident  to  the  examination  of  the  respective  jurors.  The 
jurors  objected  to  had  formed  positive  opinions,  and  man)' 
of  them  from  mouths  of  individuals  who  undertook  to  de- 
tail to  them  the  proof  in  the  case — the  evidence  submitted 
before  the  magistrate,  which  they  had  heard.  In  other 
words,  they  had  themselves  passed  already  upon  the  proof. 
The  state  in  that  case  objected  to  the  jurors  in  question. 
The  defendants'  counsel  objected  to  the  ruling  of  the  court, 
who  excluded  the  jurors  as  incompetent.  There  is  no 
parallel  whatever  between  the  examination  of  the  jurors 
in  the  case  at  bar  and  the  one  in  Ncely  v.  The  People, 
above. 

Whatever  may  have  been  said  by  this  court  in  Gniv 
v.  The  People,  26  111.,  344,  the  same  is  not  applicable  nor 
pertinent  under  the  act  of  1874,  although  we  respectfully 
submit  that  the  distinction  between  rumor  derived  from 
the  mouths  of  persons  uninformed,  and  with  no  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts,  and  rumor  obtained  from  newspaper 
accounts  of  #ny  transaction,  derived  also  and  only  from 
rumor,  is  not  well  taken  in  the  case  above.  It  is 
evident  that  juror  Anderson  would  not  have  been  dis- 
qualified under  the  decision  in  Smith  v.  Eames,  even  if 
he  had  stated  that  he  read  an  account  of  the  burglary  in 
a  newspaper.  We  can  see  no  difference  between  a  news- 
paper rumor  and  a  neighborhood  rumor.  In  the  Gray 
case,  the  juror  Anderson  not  only  stated  that  he  be- 
lieved the  newspaper  statements,  but  it  is  evident  from 


i66 

his  answer  that  he  had  formed  a  decided  or^ositive  opin- 
ion that  Silas  Gray  committed  the  crime,  so  that  should 
the  evidence  show,  that  the  prisoner  was  Silas  Gray, 
then  the  juror  had  a  decided  opinion  as  to  his  guilt. 

Even  in  the  light  of  the  common-law  rulings,  and  a 
careful  consideration  of  what  this  court  has  said  in  C.  &. 
A.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Adler,  56  111.,  344,  and  Winnesheik  his. 
Co.  v.  Schucller,  60  111.,  465,  there  is  no  objection  to  any 
one  of  the  jurors  selected  in  this  case. 

In  decisions  rendered   by  this  court  before  the  act  of 
1874,  the  jurors  in  the  case  at  bar  were  competent. 
Thompson  v.  People,  24  111.,  60. 
Collins  v.  People,  48  III.,  145. 
Leach  v.  People,  53  111.,  311. 

The  examination  of  the  jury  in  Leach  v.  The  People 
appears  very  fully.  A  comparison  of  the  questions  and 
answers  in  the  examination  of  the  jury  in  that  case  with 
the  questions  and  answers  in  the  case  at  bar  discloses  the 
fact  that  if  there  is  any  significance  in  the  words  "  fixed 
opinion,"  the  jury  in  the  case  at  bar  is  less  subject  to  that 
criticism  than  in  the  foregoing  case. 

In  case  Collins,  v.  The  People,  48  111.,  146,  cited  by 
defense,  a  number  of  the  jurors  stated  that  they  had  heard 
the  circumstances  of  the  difficulty;  that  they  believed  the 
statements,  and  upon  these  statements  had  fixed  opinions 
as  to  the  merits  of  the  case  such  as  would  require  evi- 
dence to  remove  or  change.  This  court  held  that  the 
challenges  for  cause  as  to  said  jurors  should  have  been 
allowed;  and  properly  so,  because  such  jurors  said  that 
they  had  fixed  opinions. 

Our    Supreme    court,  recognizing  the  necessity    of  a 


167 

change  in  the   jury  law,  in   Albright  v.   Walker,  73   111., 
69,  said: 

"  It  is  a  familiar  principle  that  juries  must  be  free  from 
all  exception.  There  have  been  invasions  upon  this  old 
maxim  of  the  common  law  by  the  legislation  of  some 
states,  among  them  our  own,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference 
to  Section  14  of  Chapter  78,  Revised  Statutes  (1874). 
This  change  of  the  law  was  rendered  necessary  for  the 
due  administration  of  criminal  justice  and  demanded  by 
its  exigencies,  and  will,  no  doubt,  work  well  in  practice." 

The  court,  in  that  case,  held  juror  Carpenter  compe- 
tent, and  Steckel  incompetent.  It  was  very  evident  that 
both  under  the  act  of  1874  and  ur>der  the  common-law 
decisions  prior  to  that  date,  that  Steckel  was  incompe- 
tent. 

In  the  case  of  Plummer  v.  The  People,  74  111.,  261, 
cited  by  counsel  for  the  defense,  the  .court  quotes  with 
approval  the  provision  of  the  statute  above,  and  declares 
juror  Sullivan  competent  and  Broubaker  incompetent. 
The  last-named  juror  did  not  say  he  could  sit  as  an  im- 
partial juror  and  determine  the  case  upon  the  evidence 
alone;  whereas  the  juror  Sullivan  says  he  does  not  think 
that  any  unfavorable  opinion  that  he  has  would  prevent 
his  rendering  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict. 

In  Lycoming  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ward,  90  111.,  545,  defendant 
challenged  five  persons  for  cause.  The  challenges  were 
respectively  overruled,  and  exception  by  defendant.  The 
ground  of  challenge  was  that  these  five  men  were  on  the 
regular  panel  and  thai  they  had  heard  a  part  of  the  evi- 
dence in  a  similar  case  between  the  same  parties.  Judge 
CRAIG-  says:  "If  they  had  any  opinion  whatever  from 
"  what  they  had  heard  during  the  trial  of  the  other  case, 
"  it  was  merely  hypothetical  and  would  not  prevent  a  fair 
"  and  impartial  judgment  of  the  facts  as  they  might  be 


i68 

"  proven  on  the  trial."  The  judgment  in  said  case  was 
affirmed,  and  the  suggestions  of  the  court  there  go  much 
further  than  we  claim  for  here,  because  it  does  not  appear 
anywhere  that  any  juror  selected  to  try  this  case  knew 
anything  whatever  about  the  facts  involved,  except  that 
derived  from  rumor,  and  each  one  of  the  twelve  selected 
as  well  as  the  twenty-six  complained  of  stated  that  he 
could  decide  the  case  fairly  and  impartially  upon  the  facts 
presented  in  court,  and  upon  them  alone. 

Robinson  v.  Randolph,  82  111.,  521. 

In  Wilson  v.  The  People,  94  111.,  299,  juror  Gray,  to 
whom  objection  was  made,  said:  "  I  have  read  news- 
"  paper  accounts  of  the  commission  of  the  crime  with 
"  which  the  defendant  is  charged,  and  have  also  conversed 
"  with  several  persons  in  regard  to  it  since  coming  to 
"  Carthage,  and  during  my  attendance  upon  this  term  of 
"  court;  don't  know  whether  they  are  witnesses  in  the 
"  case  or  not;  don't  know  who  the  witnesses  in  the  case 
"  are;  from  accounts  I  have  read  and  from  conversations 
"  I  have  had,  I  have  formed  an  opinion  in  the  case;  would 
"  have  an  opinion  in  the  case  now  if  the  facts  should  turn 
"  out  as  I  have  heard  them,  and  1  think  it  would  take  some 
"  evidence  to  remove  that  opinion.  Would  be  governed  by 
"  the  evidence  in  the  case,  and  can  give  the  defendant  a 
"  fair  and  impartial  trial,  according  to  the  law  and  the 
"  evidence." 

If  the  announcement  of  the  Supreme  court  upon  the  ex- 
amination of  this  juror  has  any  significance  or  weight, 
the  question  at  issue  here  in  regard  to  the  j'ury  impanel- 
ing is  settled. 

The  court  say: 

"  We    think    the    objection    to    Gray's    competency    is 


i6p 

clearly  removed  by  the  statute,  if,  indeed,  he  would  have 
been  incompetent  otherwise" 

Richmond  v.  Roberts,  98  111.,  476. 
Gradle  v.  Hoffman,  105  111.,  147. 
Hughes  v.  The  People,  116  111.,  339. 
Car  row  v.  The  People,  113  111.,  550. 

In  C.  &  W.  I.  R.  R.'  Co.  v.  Bingcnhcimcr,  Justice 
SCOTT,  for  the  court,  in  sustaining  the  rulings  of  the  lower 
court  upon  the  competency  of  the  jurors,  said: 

"  The  juror  distinctly  said  he  did  not  know  as  there 
"  was  any  reason  why  he  could  not  try  this  case  fairly 
"  and  impartially.  It  is  true  he  did  state,  if  he  had  any 
"  sympathy  it  would  be  with  the  'young  man  that  lost  his 
"  limb,'  and  that  he  '  would  have  no  sympathy  for  the 
"  railroad.'  That  is  simply  an  expression  of  kindlv  feel- 
"  ing  common  to  all  good  people,  and  certainly  the  posses- 
"  sion  of  so  kindly  a  spirit  would  not  disqualify  a  citizen, 
"  otherwise  competent,  from  acting  in  the  capacity  of  a 
"  juror.  Notwithstanding  any  sympathy  he  might  have, 
"  he  stated  he  would  not  violate  his  '  oath  under  any  cir- 
"  cumstances,'  and  when  asked  whether  he  would 
"  '  endeavor  to  do  justice  between  the  parties,'  he  answered 
"  without  hesitation  that  he  would.  The  juror  was  com- 
"  petent,  and  there  was  not  the  slightest  ground  for  sus- 
"  taining  the  challenge  as  to  him  for  cause." 


170 


PORTIONS  OF  THE   EXAMINATION  OF   THE   TWENTY-SIX 

JURORS    MENTIONED    IN    PLAINTIFF'S    BRIEF. 

We  wish  briefly  to  bring  the  attention  of  the  court  to 
some  of  the  inaccuracies  of  statement  in  the  defendants' 
brief,  in  reference  to  the  examination  of  the  twenty-six 
complained  of. 

FRANK  JACOBSON  (A,  312),  whose  business  was  that 
of  a  watchmaker,  has  resided  in  the  city  of  Chicago 
twenty-five  years.'  Had  read  the  accounts  of  the  Hay- 
market  tragedy  in  some  of  the  newspapers;  said  further 
that  although  he  was  prejudiced  against  the  class  known 
as  communists,  anarchists  and  socialists,  believed  that  he 
could  try  the  defendants  fairly  and  impartially  upon  the 
testimony  produced  in  court,  and  render  a  fair  and  im- 
partial verdict;  believed  that  justice  was  such  that  a  man 
ought  to  be  tried  only,  upon  the  evidence. 

The  only  possible  objection  to  this  juror  consists  in 
the  fact,  as  appears  from  the  brief,  and  also  the  record, 
that  he  expressed  for  the  first  time,  upon  his  examination, 
the  opinion  that  he  believed  the  accounts  which  he  read 
to  be  true;  counsel  contending  that  if  a  juror  upon  his  ex- 
amination for  the  first  time  expresses  his  opinion  about 
the  truth  of  the  rumor  or  newspaper  statements,  he  is  dis- 
qualified. 

JOHN  JOHNSON  (B,  155): 

Born  in  Sweden;  in  the  tobacco  business;  lived  eighteen 
years  in  Chicago.  Believes  only  to  a  certain  extent  what 
he  reads  in  newspapers;  says  that  he  could  listen  to  the 
testimony  and  the  charge  of  'the  court,  and  return  an  im- 
partial verdict  in  the  case.  To  a  certain  extent  he  is 


prejudiced  against  the  classes  known  as  socialists,  anarch- 
ists and  communists;  is  acquainted  with  none  of  the  de- 
fendants. Know  none  of  the  policemen  who  were  at  the 
Haymarket  meeting.  Acquainted  with  two  or  three  po- 
licemen; none  of  whom  had  he  seen  since  the  Haymarket 
meeting.  His  opinion  is  not  very  strong,  and  can  be 
removed  by  evidence,  and  such  opinion  will  not  prevent 
him  f-rom  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  in  the  case.  The 
court  refused  to  allow  this  juror  to  answer  the  question 
as  to  whether  or  not  it  would  require  strong  evidence  to 
remove  his  opinion.  This  question  was  manifestly  objection- 
able. It  allows  the  juror  to  say,  in  the  first  instance,  before 
any  testimony  whatever  is  produced,  whether  or  not  such 
testimony  is  strong.  It  allows  him  to  determine  what  is 
strong  and  what  is  not  strong  testimony.  The  question 
was  misleading,  and  in  no  way,  if  answered,  could  it 
throw  any  light  upon  the  juror's  competency, 

CHAS.  H.  HILL  (B,  187): 

Is  a  printer,  residing  in  Chicago  for  the  last  eight  years; 
born  in  the  State  of  Illinois.  Has  expressed  no  opinion 
as  to  the  innocence  or  guilt  of  the  defendants;  could  try 
the  case  impartially,  regardless  of  opinion;  could  act 
solely  upon  the  evidence;  and  has  had, in  reference  to  the 
Haymarket  tragedy,  casual  conversations;  has  a  prej- 
udice against  anarchists. 

Counsel  for  defendants  complained  of  the  answer  to 
one  question  propounded  to  this  witness.  Two  questions, 
taken  together,  and  the  answers  thereto  respectively, 
read  as  follows: 

"  Q.  Do  you  believe  that,  notwithstanding  your  pres- 
ent condition  of  mind  and  opinions,  you  can  listen  to 
the  testimony  of  witnesses  sworn  in  this  case,  and  the 
charge  by  the  court,  and  render  an  impartial  verdict  in 
the  case? 


172 

"  A.     Yes,  sir. 

"  Q.     You  have  no  opinions,  biases  or  prejbdices  which 
would  require  testimony  to  overcome? 
"  A.     Yes,  sir,  I  have." 

W.  H.  UPHAM  (A,  6): 

He  is  in  the  tannery  business;  did  not  state  that  he  had 
expressed  an  opinion  about  the  truth  of  the  rumor  or  news- 
paper statement  which  he  had  read  and  heard. 

Has  no  prejudice  whatever  against  the  defendants 
which  would  influence  his  verdict;  could  render  a  verdict 
absolutely  upon  the  evidence  and  law.  Could  not  state 
positively  that  he  ever  had  expressed  any  opinion  about 
the  innocence  or  guilt  of  the  defendants,  although  he 
thought  he  did  in  regard  to  some  of  them. 

E.  F.  SHEDD  (A,  291): 

Lives  at  Ravenswood,  in  Cook  county,  Illinois,  and  is  a 
clerk  in  a  wholesale  coffee  and  tea  concern;  resided  in 
Cook  county  since  1870.  Formed  an  opinion,  from  read- 
ing the  newspapers,  about  the  Haymarket  massacre. 
Says  he  thinks  that  he  could  render  a  fair  and  impartial 
verdict  upon  the  evidence  produced  in  court  under  the  in- 
structions of  the  court,  notwithstanding  the  opinion  which 
he  had  already  formed. 

A.  F.  BRADLEY  (A,  198) : 

Resided  in  the  city  of  Chicago  twenty  years ;  is  a  painter 
by  trade.  Talked  with  people  that  he  supposed  were  at 
the  Haymarket  meeting,  but  none  of  the  facts  and  circum- 
stances occurring  there  were  detailed  to  him ;  have  had  no 
conversation  with  any  of  the  members  of  the  police  force 
or  the  detective  force  in  regard  to  the  matter.  Such  con- 
versations as  he  had  were  casual  and  not  of  an  inquiring 
nature;  had  formed  no  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence 


of  the  defendants.  Has  no  prejudice  against  socialists, 
communists  and  anarchists;  prejudice  is  strong  against 
their  conduct;  has  no  prejudice  against  secret  organiza- 
tions, nor  against  trades  unions  or  labor  unions,  and  if  he 
were  to  sit  as  a  juror  in  this  case  the  fact  that  they  were 
socialists,  communists  or  anarchists  would  not  bias  his 
judgment  in  determining  their  guilt  or  innocence;  he  is 
sure  of  that;  and  believes  that  he  could  fairly  and  impar 
tially  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants 
by  the  evidence  under  the  instructions  of  the  court,  and 
nothing  else.  Said  he  would  try  this  case  as  he  would 
any  other  case;  does  not  believe  that  a  man  is  guilty  be- 
cause he  is  charged  with  a  crime,  and  is  no  more  preju- 
diced against  the  defendants  than  any  other  men  charged 
with  crime. 

The  challenge  for  cause  appears  interposed  on  page 
303,  which  being  overruled,  the  defendants'  counsel  pro- 
ceeded further  to  examine  the  juror.  His  answers  alto- 
gether pronounce  him  a  qualified  juror.  The  challenge 
for  cause  was  not  again  interposed,  but  he  was  challenged 
peremptorily  by  defendants  at  the  close  of  the  examination, 
as  appears  on  page  206. 

WILLIAM  NEIL  (C,  50): 

Is  a  manufacturer  of  oil  tanks;  resided  in  Cook  county 
about  eight  years;  believes  some  of  the  accounts  which 
hje  reads  of  matters  in  newspapers.  Believed  enough  to 
form  an  opinion  as  to  the  Haymarket  matter,  but  his 
opinion  is  not  strong;  is  prejudiced  against  none  of  the 
defendants.  Has  expressed  such  opinion  as  he  has.  Be- 
lieves that  he  could  entirely  lay  aside  the  opinion  he  has 
and  dismiss  entirely  from  his  mind  the  impression  that  he 
has  formed  from  reading  or  hearing,  and  does  not  believe 


174 

that  the  opinion  which  he  has  formed  would,  in  any  way, 
influence  his  verdict.  Believes  that  he  could  determine 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  each  or  every  one  of  the  de- 
fendants upon  evidence  presented  in  court  solely,  without 
being  influenced  in  any  manner  or  shape  by  what  he  has 
read  or  heard,  or  the  opinion  that  he  has.  Says  he  could 
give  a  fair  verdict  on  the  evidence  that  he  would  hear; 
has  no  ill-will  or  ill-feeling  against  any  of  the  defendants 
on  account  of  what  he  has  read  or  heard  about  the 
transactions  at  the  Haymarket  on  the  night  of  May  4th. 
Could  fully  and  impartially  make  up  his  mind  as  to  the 
guilt  or  innocence  from  the  proof  under  the  charge  of  the 
court;  would  not  find  any  man  guilty  of  a  crime  until  he 
believed  from  the  evidence  that  he  was  guilty  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt,  and  knows  that  he  is  not  to  convict  a 
man  unless  he  is  proven  to  be  guilty  in  court  on  trial,  by 
evidence  so  satisfactory  that  the  jurors  have  no  reasona- 
ble doubt  about  his  guilt,  and  that  the  evidence  must  be 
clear,  whatever  prejudice  or  feeling  the  jurors  may  have 
about  the  crime. 

JAMES  S.  OAKLEY  (C,  91): 

Lived  twenty  years  in  Cook  county;  is  a  manufacturer 
of  leather;  has  read  and  heard  of  the  Haymarket  diffi- 
culty and  has  expressed  an  opinion.  Says  that  he  believes 
that  he  could  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  each  and 
every  one  of  the  defendants  upon  the  proof  presented  to 
him  in  court  solely,  and  under  the  instructions  of  the  court, 
without  being  influenced  by  what  he  has  heard  or  read, 
or  the  opinion  that  he  has.  Says  if  the  evidence  was  in- 
sufficient would  not  convict;  and  would  not  convict  any 
defendant  unless  he  was  satisfied  by  the  evidence  that  he 
was  guilty  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt;  and  would  not  call 


upon  his  opinion,  or  allow  himself  to  be  influenced  by  it; 
don't  think  he  has  ever  seen  any  of  the  defendants  before. 
Believes  that  if  he  was  selected  as  a  juror,  could  deter- 
mine the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendant  solely  upon 
what  was  presented  here  in  court,  regardless  of  what  he 
had  heard  or  read,  and  without  being  influenced  by  what 
he  had  read  or  heard,  and  knows  that  no  man  should  be 
convicted  of  any  offense  until  he  is  proven  guilty  beyond 
a  reasonable  doubt;  is  conscious  of  no  feeling  which 
would  have  any  tendency  to  interfere  with  the  desire  on 
his  part  to  learn  from  evidence,  and  from  that  alone,  the 
absolute  truth  about  what  had  happened;  talked  with  no 
one  who  knew  anything  about  the  Hay  market  matter;  if 
the  evidence  was  insufficient,  would  acquit. 

H.  F.  CHANDLER  (C,  149): 

Is  in  the  stationery  business;  resides  in  Chicago;  had 
an  opinion,  based  upon  newspaper  statements,  as  to  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  which  he  has  expressed ; 
has  never  expressed  any  opinion  as  to  the  truth  of  the 
rumor  or  newspaper  statements,  and  believes  that  he 
could  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  each  and  every 
one  of  the  defendants  solely  and  exclusively  upon  the 
evidence  presented  in  court,  without  being  influenced  by 
what  he  had  heard  or  the  opinion  that  he  has.  lit'  is 
not  opposed  to  labor  organizations,  like  the  Knights  of 
Labor;  has  no  acquaintance  with  any  member  of  the 
police  force  of  the  city  of  Chicago;  has  talked  with  no 
one  who  was  present  at  the  Haymarket  meeting,  so  far 
as  he  knows;  knows  only  of  the  matter  through  casual 
newspaper  reading,  and  has  not  had  very  freqent  conver- 
sations on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Chandler's  examination  was  further  resumed  on 
page  209: 


176 

lias  no  personal  acquaintance  with  any  of  the  defend- 
ants; don't  know  as  he  ever  saw,  any  of  fchem  before. 
Thinks  he  has  some  feeling  against  the  defendants  on  ac- 
count of  what  he  has  read  about  the  Hay  market  meeting; 
knows  that  no  man  shall  be  convicted  of  any  offense,  un- 
less the  evidence  on  his  trial  satisfies  the  jury  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt  of  his  guilt;  and  believes  that  he  could 
sit  as  a  juror  and  determine  the  truth  about  any  charge  af- 
fecting them,  solely  from  the  evidence  that  he  may  hear 
in  court.  Talked  with  some  one,  whose  name  he  cannot 
recall,  who  professed  to  have  a  personal  knowledge  or 
acquaintance  with  some  of  the  defendants,  but  such  con- 
versation was  not  in  reference  to  the  charge  which  is  now 
under  investigation.  Never  expressed  an  opinion  as  to 
the  truth  of  the  rumor  or  newspaper  statements. 

A.  L.  KETCHUM   (C,  131): 

Is  in  the  drug  business  in  Chicago  with  Peter  Van 
Schaack  &  Sons;  had  read  about  the  Haymarket  diffi- 
culty; formed  an  opinion;  has  expressed  it.  Thinks  he 
could  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  every  one  and 
each  of  the  defendants  exclusively  and  solely  upon  the 
evidence  presented  in  court,  and  would  not  allow  himself 
to  be  influenced  by  what  he  had  heard  or  read,  or  the 
opinion  he  has,  in  arriving  at  a  verdict.  Thinks  he  could 
render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict. 

The  following  questions  and  answers  appear  in  this  ex- 
amination: 

'•  Q.  Supposing  this  state  of  facts:  That  the  prose- 
cution will  produce  their  testimony  here  in  court;  after 
resting  their  case  we  would  not  introduce  any  evidence; 
if  the  evidence  presented  by  the  state  did  not  satisfy  you 
beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  that  some  one  or  more  of 
these  defendants  are  guilty  of  the  crime  of  which  they  are 


i77 

charged,  would  you  then  be  influenced  by  the  opinion  you 
have?  Would  you  draw  upon  the  facts  stored  up  in  your 
mind  when  you  drew  the  conclusion? 

"  A.     /  •would  be  governed  by  the  evidence  in  the  case. 

"  Q.  You  think  that  you  could  lay  aside  entirely  the 
opinion  you  now  have? 

"  A.     Yes,  sir." 

Would  not  be  influenced  by  any  previous  opinion  to 
help  out  the  insufficiency  of  the  evidence;  is  not  prejudiced 
against  socialists,  anarchists  and  communists,  and  is  not 
opposed  to  labor  organizations,  and  has  no  acquaintance 
with  any  member  of  the  police  force;  talked  with  no 
one  who  undertook  to  narrate  to  him  the  facts  in  the  case. 

The  further  examination  of  this  juror  was  resumed  on 
page  179,  where  he  said  that  he  had  formed  a  pretty  de- 
cided opinion.  He  says,  further,  that  the  opinion  is  not 
firmly  fixed  in  his  mind. 

E.  F.  SWAN  (C,  195): 

He  is  a  broker;  was  born  in  the  State  of  Connecticut 
and  has  resided  twenty-five  years  in  the  city  of  Chicago. 
Formed  an  opinion  and  has  occasionally  expressed  it. 
Believes  that  he  would  be  governed  solely  by  the  evidence 
in  the  case;  thinks  he  would  be  able  to  dismiss  from  his 
mind  the  impression  that  he  has,  and  could  determine  the 
guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  solely  upon  the  facts 
presented  in  court,  and  entirely  lay  aside  what  he  has  heard 
or  read  about  the  case  heretofore.  He  has  a  prejudice 
against  the  class  known  as  socialists,  communists  and  an- 
archists, and  their  views,  as  he  understands  them,  but  is 
not  prejudiced  against  any  individual  who  professes  the 
doctrine  of  socialism,  communism  or  anarchism,  and  is 
not  opposed  to  labor  organizations  or  trade  unions  if  con- 
ducted within  the.  law,  and  is  not  opposed  to  the  Knights 


1 78 

of  Labor  as  expounded  by  their  chief,  Mr.  Powderly; 
thinks  his  ideas  are  good.  Has  no  personal  acquaintance 
with  any  of  the  defendants;  never  saw  any  of  them  be- 
fore; has  no  feeling  against  either  one  of  them.  Believes 
that  he  could  listen  to  the  evidence  on  both  sides  that  may 
be  presented  on  the  trial  and  from  that  evidence  alone 
make  up  his  mind  fairly  and  impartially  as  to  what  the 
real  truth  about  the  connection  of  the  defendants  with  the 
Haymarket  meeting  was,  and  without  any  reference  to 
what  he  had  heard  about  it  heretofore,  or  what  he  had 
read  about  it,  or  what  he  may  feel  about  it. 

EDWARD  KNAUER  (C,  103): 

Is  in  the  real  estate  business  in  Chicago;  resided  in 
Chicago  since  1849;  was  born  in  Germany;  had  formed 
an  opinion  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants 
from  what  he  had  read,  and  had  expressed  it.  Says  it  is 
a  pretty  strong  opinion,  but  believes  he  could  determine 
the  innocence  or  guilt  of  every  one  of  the  defendants 
solely  and  exclusively  upon  the  proof  presented  to  him  in 
court,  without  being  influenced  in  any  way  by  what  he 
had  heard  or  read,  or  the  opinion  that  he  has.  Where- 
upon juror  Knauer  was  challenged  for  cause.  He  was 
further  interrogated.  Has  no  personal  acquaintance  with 
any  of  the  defendants;  don't  know  as  he  had  ever  seen 
anv  of  them  before;  has  no  ill-feeling  against  any  of  them, 
except  such  as  may  have  grown  out  of  the  reports  which 
he  had  read  or  heard.  Would  "  go  by  the  evidence  "  in 
determining  the  question  of  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
defendants.  Says  he  believes  he  can  arrive  at  a  fair 
and  impartial  verdict  from  the  evidence.  Would  endeavor 
to  be  influenced  only  bv  the  evidence.  Knows  that  no 
man  should  be  convicted  of  any  offense  unless  the  evi- 


179 

dence  in  court  clearly  proves  him  to  be  guilty  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt.  Believes  that  if  he  was  taken  as  a 
juror  he  would  acquit  each  of  these  defendants  against 
whom  there  was  not  sufficient  evidence,  and  believes 
further  that  he  would  not  "convict  unless  the  evidence 
established  in  his  mind  the  truth  of  the  charge  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt.  Says  he  is  in  favor  of  socialists,  but  is 
against  anarchism;  has  studied  the  doctrine  of  socialism 
some.  On  page  105  this  question  and  answer  appear: 
"  Q.  Do  you  believe  that  you  could,  if  you  were  to  sit  here 
"  as  a  juror,  make  up  your  mind  as  to  what  happened  only 
"  from  the  evidence  that  may  be  put  in  here  and  in  mak- 
"  ing  up  your  mind  consider  only  that  evidence  and  not 
"  consider  any  opinion  that  you  have  had  before?  A.  Of 
"  course  I  would  just  go  by  the  evidence  that  I  would 
'•  hear  now ;  but  it  might  influence  me  some." 

Counsel  in  their  brief  make  this  witness  say  that  his 
opinion  icoii/d  influence  him  some. 

The  challenge  for  cause  was  interposed  and  overruled 
on  page  104. 

The  further  examination  by  the  court  and  by  the  de- 
fendants' counsel  appears  through  page  109,  where  juror 
Knauer  was  excused  peremptorily  by  defendants,  no 
challenge  for  cause  being  again  interposed. 

F.  I.  WILSON  (C,  284) : 

Resides  in  Chicago;  manufacturer  of  galvanized  iron, 
etc.;  had  read  about  the  Haymarket  matter;  formed  an 
opinion. 

This  question  was  put:  ';  Q.  That  opinion  is  as  to 
<:  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  some  one  or  more  of  these  de- 
fendants? A.  Not  necessarily  these  men.  I  think 
"  somebody  is  guilty/' 


i8o 

To  a  certain  extent  he  believes  what  the  newspapers 
say;  says  that  he  has  some  opinion  as  to  the  moral  re- 
sponsibility of  the  defendants;  thinks  that  his  opinion 
might  influence  his  judgment. 

A  challenge  for  cause  was  interposed,  whereupon  he 
was  examined  by  the  court  and  prosecution  as  follows: 

Knows  that  his  sworn  duty  as  a  juror  is  to  determine 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants,  from  the  proof 
presented  in  court,  and  thinks  that  he  might  determine 
their  guilt  or  innocence  upon  the  proof  regardless  of  his 
opinion,  and  regardless  of  agy  prejudice,  or  any  reading. 
Never  saw  any  of  the  defendants  before.  Knows  that  no 
man  is  to  be  convicted  of  any  offense  for  which  he  is 
charged  unless  the  evidence,  upon  his  trial  in  court, 
proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  jury  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt  that  he  is  guilty.  Recognizes  that  duty  and  that 
rule.  Has  no  feeling  against  any  one  of  the  defendants, 
and  no  feeling  or  prejudice  except  what  grows  out  of  his 
reading.  Is  only  conscious  of  a  wish  or  a  desire,  or  a 
hope,  that  whoever  is  guilty  may  be  punished,  not  neces- 
sarily these  men,  and  is  conscious  of  no  wish  that  the 
testimony  or  the  evidence  may  be  against  the  defendants, 
and  is  not  conscious  of  a  desire  that  the  proof  presented 
in  this  case  shall  show  that  some  one  of  these  men  is 
guilty :  is  only  conscious  of  a  desire  to  know  or  ascer- 
tain the  actual  truth  from  the  testimony. 

JOHN  CONNOLLY  (C,  338) : 

Lives  in  Chicago;  clerk  in  book  publisher's  establish- 
ment; formed  some  opinion  from  what  he  read.  Enter- 
tains a  personal  opinion ;  his  opinion  depends  upon  whether 
these  defendants  are  responsible  for  the  act;  has  an  opin- 
ion that  the  defendants  are  responsible;  might  change  his 


opinion;  would  change  it  if  the  evidence  were  contrary 
to  the  opinion  that  he  had.  Believes  that  he  could  deter- 
mine the  question  of  the  guilt  or  the  innocence  of  every 
one  and  each  of  the  defendants  exclusively  upon  the  proof 
that  will  be  presented  in  court  and  would  try  hard  to  do 
right.  Has  no  feeling  against  the  defendants;  has  no  re- 
vengeful feeling  in  the  matter.  Is  not  conscious  of  a  de- 
sire or  wish  that  evidence  presented  in  court  should  cor- 
roborate his  opinion.  Would  try  hard  to  determine  the 
question  in  this  case  exclusively  upon  the  evidence  pre- 
sented in  court  herein.  Believes  that  he  could  fairly  and 
impartially  try  the  case  upon  the  evidence  alone  without 
regard  to  previous  opinions.  Believes  that  he  could  fairly 
and  impartially  try  the  case  upon  the  evidence  alone,  the 
evidence  which  may  be  presented  in  court,  without  being 
influenced  or  affected,  swerved  or  biased  by  an  opinion 
that  he  now  has  or  has  had,  or  anything  that  he  has 
heard  or  read  or  said  about  the  case.  Knows  none  of 
the  defendants;  never  saw  any  of  them  before;  have  no 
ill-will  against  them,  and  has  no  feeling  except  such  as  is 
derived  from  his  reading;  has  no  knowledge  that  anything 
that  he  has  heard  or  read  about  them  is  true. 

GEORGE  N.  PORTER  (D,  191)  has  resided  in  Chicago 
twenty-three  years  and  is  a  retail  grocer.  Thinks  he  has 
an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  the  innocence  of  the  defend- 
ants; thinks  he  has  expressed  an  opinion,  as  he  has  talked 
about  the  matter.  Knows  nothing  about  the  matter  ex- 
cept what  he  has  read  in  the  newspapers.  Would  try  to 
render  an  absolutely  impartial  verdict.  Thinks  that  he 
might  be  influenced  by  what  he  had  read;  would  try  to 
go  by  the  evidence  if  he  was  selected  as  a  juror.  Is 
biased  now.  He  said  further  that  he  knows  that  guilt  or 
innocence  of  a  man  placed  upon  trial  before  a  jury  must 


[82 

be  determined  absolutely  from  the  proof  presented  in 
court;  that  he  cannot  be  tried  or  acquitted  upon  news- 
paper reports.  Knows  nothing  about  whether  the  ac- 
counts which  he  has  read  are  true  or  not;  would  try  to 
determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants  solely 
upon  the  proof  presented,  to  him  in  court,  and  says  he 
thinks  and  believes  that  he  could  fairly  and  impartially 
try  the  case  and  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  upon 
the  proof  presented.  Has  no  acquaintance  with  any  of 
the  defendants.  Never  saw  any  of  them  before.  Has  no 
ill-feeling  against  any  of  them,  and  has  no  feeling  except 
such  as  grows  out  of  what  he  has  read  or  heard  about 
the  Haymarket  matter.  No  conversation  with  anybody 
who  was  at  the  Haymarket  meeting.  All  he  knows 
about  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists  is  what  he 
read  in  the  newspapers,  and  from  such  reading  has  a 
prejudice.  Never  has  investigated  and  don't  know  what 
they  really  are;  don't  know  as  there  is  any  prejudice  in 
his  mind  which  would  affect  his  judgment;  knows  of  no 
reason  that  would  prevent  him  from  rendering  an  un- 
biased verdict  in  the  case,  but  that  he  has  a  prejudice 
against  anything  of  that  kind. 

This  juror,  as  were  many  others,  was  confused  by  con- 
founding the  expression  of  his  opinion  with  the  expression 
of  an  opinion  about  the  truth  of  the  rumor  or  the  news- 
paper statements.  It  is  clear,  however,  from  all  his  ex- 
aminations, that  the  narration  of  facts  that  the  rumor  or 
the  newspaper  statements  he  expressed  no  opinion  as  to 
the  truth  of. 

11.  X.  SMITH  (D,  311)  lives  in  Cook  county;  is  in  the 
retail  hardware  business;  was  born  in  Chicago,  and  is 
twenty-eight  years  of  age;  has  formed  and  expressed  an 
opinion.  Does  not  think  it  would  prevent  him  from  ren 


dering  an  impartial  verdict  in  the  case.  He  said  further, 
upon  Mr.  Foster's  adroit  examination,  that  he  did  not 
think  he  could  render  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict,  and 
then  said  that  he  did  not  like  to  say  that  he  would  be 
partial  after  listening  to  the  testimony  and  the  charge  of 
the  court,  further  declaring  that  he  should  render  a  verdict 
according  to  the  testimony,  if  it  was  a  possible  thing. 

After  a  challenge  for  cause  was  interposed,  he  stated 
further:  That  if  he  was  taken  and  sworn  as  a  juror 
in  this  case  to  try  the  same  upon  the  proof  presented  in 
court  that  he  believed  he  could  determine  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  defendants  upon  thai  proof  alone,  regard/ess  of 
li'hut  he  had  read  or  heard,  or  his  opinion.  Says  that  he 
knows  that  the  defendants  placed  upon  trial  are  entitled 
to  be  heard  and  tried  upon  the  proof  presented  in  court; 
that  they  are  to  be  judged  by  the  evidence;  knows  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  jury  to  hear  the  proof,  and  from  it  de- 
termine whether  they  are  innocent  or  guilty,  and  he  thinks 
that  he  could  do  that;  that  he  has  no  personal  acquaint- 
ance with  any  of  the  defendants;  never  saw  any  of  them 
before  to  his  knowledge.  Has  no  feeling  against  them 
except  what  he  has  heard  from  newspapers.  Has  talked 
with  some  one  who  was  at  the  Hay  market  at  the  time  of 
the  excitement,  but  had  no  conversation  in  regard  to  any 
one  of  these  eight  defendants;  no  name  of  any  man  was 
mentioned. 

ISAAC  W.  PINKHAM  (D,  339)  is  the  agent  of  a  coffiv 
house;  was  born  in  the  State  of  Maine,  and  has  Ixvn 
west  over  two  years;  has  formed  an  opinion  and  had  ex- 
pressed it;  has  talked  with  no  one  who  was  at  the  Hay- 
market  meeting;- read  about  it  in  the  Chicago  papers. 
Thinks  that,  notwithstanding  his  opinion,  he  could  listen 


184 

to  the  testimony  and  charge  of  the  court   an$   render   an 
impartial  verdict: 

"  Q.  You  know  your  own  mind  well  enough  to  be- 
lieve that,  upon  the  testimony  in  court,  you  can  determine 
whether  these  defendants,  or  any  of  them,  were  proved 
to  be  guilty  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt;  and  if  they  were 
not  so,  you  could  return  them  not  guilty,  notwithstanding 
all  you  have  ever  heard  or  read — all  impressions  or  opin- 
ions that  you  have  formed? 

"  A.  I  think  I  could.  I  think  I  could  change  my 
opinion  if  I  saw  any  necessity  for  it." 

That  the  evidence  would  have  to  show  that  I  was  in 
error  before  my  opinion  would  be  changed.  I  do  not 
think  that  my  present  opinion  would  prejudice  me.  Does 
not  think  it  would  make  any  difference  with  his  credence 
in  the  testimony,  that  it  concurred  with  his  views  or  the 
opinion  that  he  had  expressed.  I  talked  with  no  one  who 
knew  anything  about  the  facts.  From  all  sources,  from 
prejudice  against  socialism,  in  determining  the  guilt  or  in- 
nocence of  the  defendants,  he  would  try  not  to  be  biased. 
Believes  that  he  could  weigh  the  evidence.  Said  that 
if  he  were  taken  and  sworn  as  a  juror  in  this  case  to  try 
the  same  upon  the  proof  presented  to  him  here  in  court, 
that  he  believes  that  he  could  determine  the  guilt  or  inno- 
cence of  the  defendants  upon  the  proof  presented  to  him 
before  the  court  alone,  and  under  the  instructions  of  the 
court,  regardless  of  his  opinion  or  what  he  has  read  or 
heard. 

LEONARD  GOULD  (E,  477)  is  a  wholesale  merchant; 
has  read  of  the  Hay  market  massacre;  held  considerable 
conversations  about  it;  thinks  he  has  formed  an  opinion 
as  to  the  question  of  guilt  or  innocence  of  some  of  the  de- 
fendants; thinks  he  could  listen  to  the  evidence;  does  not 
think  it  would  be  hard  to  be  persuaded  by  it. 

l 


He  said  on  his  examination  by  the  defense  that  he  did 
not  believe  that  he  could,  irrespective  of  prejudice  and 
that  opiqion  and  all  conclusions,  be  governed  by  the  testi- 
mony alone. 

He  was  challenged  for  cause,  whereupon,  in  the  exam- 
ination by  the  state,  he  said  that  he  knew  that  a  defend- 
ant placed  upon  trial  is  entitled  to  be  tried  upon  the  proof 
presented  in  court;  that  that  is  the  only  fair  way,  and  that 
he  knows  that  that  is  the  duty  of  a  juror,  and  says  he 
thinks  he  could  weigh  the  evidence  impartially.  Afraid 
that  he  could  not  do  the  case  justice;  if  he  was  to  sit  on 
the  case  he  would  give  his  undivided  attention  to  the  evi- 
dence and  calculate  to  be  governed  by  it.  Believes  that 
he  could.  Believes  that  he  could  render  a  verdict  based 
upon  the  testimony  presented  in  court  alone. 

On  the  further  examination  by  Mr.  Foster  he  says  if  he 
were  to  sit  on  a  jury  he  should  calculate  to  be  governed 
by  the  testimony.  He  says  that  he  could  render  a  verdict 
in  accordance  with  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

This  juror  again,  as  did  many  others,  evinced  some  con- 
fusion between  the  expression  of  an  opinion  and  the  ex- 
pression of  an  opinion  about  the  truth  of  the  rumor  or 
newspaper  statements;  but  we  submit  that  he  was  quali- 
fied under  the  statute,  so  far  as  that  matter  is  concerned. 

JAMES  H.  WALKER  (F,  35)  lives  in  Chicago,  and  is 
in  the  dry-goods  business;  firm  of  James  H.  Walker  & 
Co.;  has  an  opinion  as  to  the  innocence  or  guilt  of  the  de- 
fendants; probably  has  expressed  it;  said  if  he  was  selected 
as  a  juror  he  should  try  to  do  his  duty  to  the  accused  and 
to  the  state,  and  thinks  that  he  could  do  it  uninfluenced 
by  the  opinion  which  he  has,  like  any  intelligent  man. 
Said  that  he  was  willing  to  admit  that  his  opinion  would 
handicap  his  judgment  possibly,  but  felt  that  he  could  be 


i86 

governed  by  the  testimony,  but  he  says  he  would  expect 
to  be  governed  by  the  testimony,  and  woulci  try  very  hard 
to  listen  to  the  testimony  and  the  proof  introduced  in 
court,  and  render  a  verdict  uninfluenced,  unprejudiced' 
and  unaccompanied  by  his  present  opinion,  and  he  believes 
he  could  do  so.  Thinks  that  he  could  go  into  the  trial  of 
this  case  and  be  governed  by  the  testimony,  instead  of 
being  influenced  by  his  opinions.  Knows  something  about 
the  principles  of  socialism,  communism  and  anarchism, 
and  is  prejudiced  against  them  from  what  he  has  read;  at 
least  they  don't  predispose  him  toward  them,  and  has 
prejudices  against  anything  that  is  unlawful  dr  seems  to 
be  unlawful;  only  has  a  prejudice  against  socialism,  com- 
munism and  anarchism  so  far  as  they  go  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  law.  He  said  in  this  case,  upon  examination  by 
the  defendants,  that  if  the  testimony  was  evenly  balanced 
between  the  state  and  the  defense,  that  his  present  opinion 
might  add  to  the  weight  of  the  testimony  on  the  part  of 
the  state,  whereupon  he  was  challenged  for  cause,  and 
the  following  examination  was  had,  on  the  part  of  the 
state: 

"  Q.  I  have  understood  from  all  of  your  answers,  and 
all  of  the  inquiries  that  have  been  put  to  you  that  you 
could  determine — that  you  could  pass  upon  this  case, 
upon  the  testimony  presented  here  in  court  and  the  law 
as  given  to  you  by  the  court  ?  A.  That  is  what  I  feel, 
sir." 

He  said  further  that  he  certainly  \vould  be  governed 
by  the  law,  anjd  that  he  would  determine  this  case  upon 
the  law  and  evidence  presented  in  court.  He  said  that  he 
knew  that  the  law  was  that  no  man  was  to  be  convicted 
of  any  crime  unless  the  evidence  upon  his  trial  proved 
his  guilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  Knows  that  no  man 
is  to  be  tried  upon  prior  impressions  or  prior  opinions  of 


1 87 

the  jurors.  Believes  that  he  could  fairly  and  impartially 
render  a  verdict  without  any  regard  to  rumor,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law  and  the  evidence  in  the  case. 

The  answers  of  the  juror  Walker,  taken  in  connection 
with  his  demeanor,  his  manner  and  his  intelligence,  dem- 
onstrate that  his  qualifications  come  within  the  provisions 
of  the  law. 

W.  D.  ALLEN  (C,  125),  in  the  wholesale  rubber  business 
in  Chicago.  Formed  an  opinion,  and  expressed  it  to  others. 
Thinks  that  he  could  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence 
of  these  defendants  and  each  and  every  one  of  them  solely 
and  exclusively  upon  the  proof  presented  to  him  in  court, 
without  being  influenced  by  the  opinion  that  he  has.  He 
said  that  he  has  a  strong  opinion  against  the  defendants, 
whereupon  he  was  challenged  for  cause.  Further  said 
that  he  could  determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  de- 
fendants upon  the  proof  presented  in  court,  regardless  of 
his  opinion.  Has  no  personal  acquaintance  with  either 
of  the  defendants;  knows  none  of  them;  has  no  feeling 
against  them,  and  if  he  was  impaneled  as  a  juror  he1  be- 
lieves that  he  would  endeavor  to  get  at  the  real  truth  by 
the  evidence,  without  regard  to  any  former  opinion  that 
he  has  or  has  had,  or  anything  that  he  has  read  or  heard ; 
believes  that  he  could  fairly  and  impartially  try  the  case 
only  upon  the  evidence  heard  in  court,  under  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  court.  Is  familiar  with  the  rule  of  law  that 
if  there  is  no  evidence  which  entirely  satisfies  a  jury  be- 
yond a  reasonable  doubt  of  the  guilt  of  the  person  charged 
with  the  offense,  he  must  be  acquitted.  Believes  that  he 
could  fairly  and  impartially  apply  this  rule  in  this  case, 
and  unless  the  evidence  which  he  heard  here  in  court  is 
of  that  character,  that  he  could  acquit  these  defendants. 


1 88 

WILLIAM  CROWLEY  (A,  141)  lives  in  Lemont, 
in  Cook  county;  was  born  in  Cook  county;  is  a  farmer. 
Has  been  a  laboring  man  and  a  farmer  since  he 
began  to  work  for  himself.  Has  an  opinion  derived 
from  newspapers  and  rumors.  Does  not  believe  all 
he  heard  and  read.  Does  not  put  implicit  confidence 
in  all  that  is  said  or  printed.  Has  some  prejudice  and 
feeling  against  the  class  called  communists;  feeling  is  not 
so  strong  that  he  could  not  render  a  true  verdict  in  this 
case  under  the  evidence.  Thinks  his  mind  is  free  from 
any  prejudice  or  bias  which  would  prevent  his  rendering 
a  verdict  upon  the  testimony  as  it  shall  be  introduced 
here  by  the  witnesses  on  the  stand.  Has  some  acquaint- 
ances on  the  police  force.  Has  had  no  conversation  with 
any  policeman  since  the  Haymarket  affair;  did  not  know 
the  deceased.  Says  he  could  give  a  fair  verdict  regard- 
less of  anything. 

The  only  point  made  against  juror  Crowley  appears  to 
be  that  he  was  not  permitted  to  answer  the  question  ap- 
pearing in  brief  of  counsel  for  defendants  at  page  363. 
It  occupies  more  than  one-half  of  the  page,  and  we  sub- 
mit it  to  the  court  for  inspection.  We  contend  that  the 
question  is  objectionable  as  framed,  and  it  being  substan- 
tially a  hypothetical  question,  counsel  had  no  right  to 
assume  a  part  of  the  supposed  facts  in  a  case  as  the  com- 
plete hypothesis.  We  insist,  further,  that  it  does  not  con- 
form to  the  correct  propositions  of  law  applicable  to  this 
case. 

T.  H.  DOWD  (B,  99):  No  challenge  for  cause  was  in- 
terposed as  to  this  juror;  he  was  challenged  peremptorily 
by  counsel  for  defendants.  His  examination  clearly  an- 
nounced his  competency,  as  there  was  no  prejudice  and 
no  opinion  in  any  way  which  would  interfere  with  his 


189 

rendering  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict.  Counsel  object  to 
the  rulings  of  the  court  in  some  instances  where  questions 
in  regard  to  anarchists,  communists  and  socialists  were 
interposed.  In  the  case  of  juror  Dowd  will  be  found  a 
complete  answer  to  any  objection.  No  injury  did  or  could 
result  to  any  defendants  because  of  the  refusal  of  the 
court  to  permit  counsel  to  ask  the  objectionable  question, 
and  we  think  that  an  inspection  of  the  record  will  show 
that  the  element  of  prejudice  by  the  jury  against  anarchists 
was  fairly  submitted  to  such  jurors.  This  question  was 
asked  juror  Dowd: 

"  Notwithstanding  the  prejudice  which  you  say  you 
"  have  against  this  class  (socialists,  anarchists  and  com- 
;'  munists),  notwithstanding  the  opinion  which  you  have 
"  formed  in  this  case  upon  the  question  of  the  defendants' 
"  guilt  or  innocence,  do  you  now  believe  that  you  could 
"  act  entirely  upon  the  evidence  as  it  is  introduced  upon 
"  the  trial,  and  the  law  as  given  you  by  the  court,  and 
'•  render  a  verdict  in  this  case  without  prejudice  as  to  the 
"  defendants?  A.  I  think  I  could;  yes,  sir." 

H.  L.  ANDERSON  (C,  507),  formerly  a  farmer;  was 
born  in  Indiana;  in  the  grocery  business;  has  lived  in 
Chicago  fourteen  years;  business  in  Chicago;  knows 
none  of  the  parties  defendant;  thinks  that  some  one  is 
guilty.  The  opinion  that  he  has  is  only  from  newspaper 
accounts  and  from  talks  with  other  people.  Says  that  he 
knows  that  the  case  is  to  be  tried-  upon  the  testimony  in- 
troduced in  coutt-from  witnesses  upon  the  stand,  and  be- 
lieves that  he  could  listen  to  the  testimony  and  render  an 
unbiased  verdict  in  the  case,  notwithstanding  his  opinion; 
is  sure  he  could;  that  he  would  not  be  hunting  for  evi- 
dence to  sustain  his  opinion.  Is  well  acquainted  with 
some  of  the  members  of  the  police  force  that  were  pres- 


ent  at  the  1 1  ay  market  the  night  of  the  meeting;  has 
talked  with  some  policemen  who  were  on  Cratythat  night; 
has  had  no  conversation  with  any  one  that  was  injured, 
but  has  with  some  who  were  there.  Don't  know  as  he 
knows  Degan.  Says  that  he  could  lay  aside  his  opinion 
absolutely,  and  determine  the  question  without  any  bias. 

This  witness  says,  on  the  bottom  of  page  514  of  the 
record,  and  following,  that  he  does  not  remember  of  talk- 
ing with  any  one  who  said  anything  about  the  defendants 
at  that  meeting.  He  says  further,  on  page  517,  that  he 
does  not  remember  of  talking  with  but  one  who  was 
present;  does  not  remember  that  he  mentioned  the  name 
of  any  individual.  No  part  of  the  speeches  was  detailed 
to  him;  it  was  simply  a  narration  of  a  few  facts,  namely: 
that  the  policemen  marched  down  the  street;  that  a  bomb 
was  thrown,  and  that  some  of  the  policemen  were  in- 
jured. 

We  submit  that  the  italicized  and  emphasized  remarks 
remarks  of  counsel  on  page  368  are  unfair  and  partial: 
that  the  record  will  not  bear  out  the  same;  that' the  most 
that  appears  from  Anderson's  testimony  is  that  he  was 
talking  with  somebody  who  professed  to  have  been  at 
the  Haymarket  and  from  such  person  obtained  only  the 
information  that  the  police  were  there;  that  a  bomb  was 
thrown  and  some  policemen  were  injured.  It  does  not 
appear  that  he  talked  with  any  individual  who  was  called 
as  a  witness,  or  who  was  a  witness. 

T.  E.  KKEFE,  (0,42)  lives  in  Chicago;  is  a  salesman  in 
a  grocery  store;  was  born  in  Chicago  twenty-five  years 
ago;  read  about  the  Haymarket  matter;  had  formed  an 
opinion  in  the  matter;  has  the  opinion  yet;  says  that  he 
does  not  think  that  his  opinion  would  influence  him  as  a 
juror  in  the  case;  that  he  could  listen  to  the  testimony  and 


charge  of  the  court  and  render  an  impartial  verdict;  is  ac- 
quainted with  some  of  the  police  officers;  has  talked  with 
none  of  them  about  the  Haymarket  matter,  and  has  heard 
no  policeman  say  anything  about  the  Haymarket  massa- 
cre. He  knew  Officer  Degan;  only  knows  Degan  from 
seeing  him  and  meeting  him  on  the  street;  his  death  had 
nothing  to  do  with  my  forming  an  opinion  in  the  matter. 
He  has  expressed  'his  opinion. 

From  the  examination  of  this  juror  it  appears  that  the 
only  question  was  whether  the  juror  had  expressed  his 
opinion  about  the  Haymarket  massacre,  or  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  defendants,  or  had  expressed  an  opinion 
about  the  truth  of  the  rumor  or  the  newspaper  state- 
ments. 

It  is  evident  that  the  juror  did  not  mean,  although 
adroitly  questioned  by  the  counsel  for  defendants,  that  he 
had  expressed  an  opinion  about  the  truth  of  the  rumor  or 
newspaper  statements. 

M.  D.  FLAVIN  (D,  411) :  We  submit  the  examination 
of  this  juror  to  the  consideration  of  the  court.  His  an- 
swers evidently  impressed  the  counsel  for  the  defendants 
upon  his  examination  that  he  was  competent,  as  appears 
on  page  418. 

RUSH  PATTERSON  (F,  56):  Born  in  the  State  of  New 
Jersey  and  has  lived  twelve  years  in  the  west;  has  been 
in  the  employ  of  Edson  Keith  &  Co.  for  eleven  years:  re- 
sides in  Chicago;  had  formed  an  opinion:  had  expressed 
it  to  others.  The  opinion  is  simply  formed  upon  the 
reading  of  newspapers,  and  it .  is  pretty  deeply  rooted. 
Says  that  he  thinks  that  he  could  listen  to  the  testimony 
from  the  witnesses  upon  the  stand  here1  in  court  and  any 
other  proofs  that  may  be  introduced  on  the  trial,  and 


192 

under  the  charge  of  the  court,  render  a  verdict  upon  that 
and  that  alone,  uninfluenced,  unaided,  unassisted,  unpreju" 
diced  and  unaffected  by  his  present  opinion.  Is  prejudiced 
against  the  class  known  as  socialists,  communists  and  an- 
archists. •  Knows  of  no  prejudice  existing  in  this  case  that 
would  prevent  him  from  rendering  an  impartial  verdict  on 
the  evidence^in  the  case  except  such  as  he  remarked  about 
having  the  opinion  formed  from  the  newspaper  reports 
and  general  conversations.  Says  that  he  would  take  the 
law  from  the  court  and  determine  the  matter  upon  the 
evidence,  and  if  the  evidence  did  not  show  that  the  de- 
fendants were  guilty  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  he  could 
acquit  them;  that  he  would  give  give  the  defendants  the 
benefit  of  the  doubt;  that  his  opinion  would  not  come  in 
for  consideration  at  all  in  the  trial  of  the  case.  He  favors 
the  formation  of  associations  of  laboring  men  for  their  pro- 
tection, so  long  as  they  keep  within  the  bounds  of  the  law. 

This  juror  said  substantially,  during  his  examination, 
that  he  had  formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  of  some  of 
the  defendants;  believes  that  he  could  determine  the  ques- 
tion of  their  guilt  or  innocence  entirely  upon  the  testi- 
mony. He  said  further  that  he  could  listen  to  the  testi- 
mony that  would  be  introduced  and  make  up  his  opinion 
according  to  the  facts;  that  he  was  not  there  to  convict 
them  on  his  opinion  or  his  testimony.  "  /  am  not  here  to 
"//•>'  them  from  inv  opinion  at  all;  I  don't  mean  that."1 
He  further  stated  that  if  the  testimony  was  evenly  bal- 
anced he  was  afraid  that  his  opinion  would  influence  his 
verdict  against  them. 

A  challenge  for  cause  was  interposed,  whereupon  said 
juror  was  further  interrogated  by  the  state,  when  he 
again  said  that  if  he  did  not  believe  the  defendants,  or 
some  of  them,  were  guilty  from  the  facts  and  evidence 


193 

produced  in  court,  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  he  would 
acquit  them.  He  said  again  that  if  the  testimony  was  in 
fact  evenly  balanced,  he  certainly  would  have  a  reasonable 
doubt;  that  he  would  give  the  defendants  the  benefit  of 
that  doubt.  He  said  further  that  the  evidence  must  be  of 
such  a  character  as  would  make  the  defendants'  guilt 
clear  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  or  else  he  would  acquit 
them;  said  he  would  take  the  law  from  the  court,  and 
the  evidence  from  the  witnesses,  and  he  should  give  the 
benefit  of  the  doubt  to  the  defendants,  and  would  acquit 
them  unless  they  were  proven  to  be  guilty  by  the  evi- 
dence'beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 

LEROY  HANNAH  (G,  165)  lives  in  Hyde  Park,  county  of 
Cook;  live  stock  and  commission  business;  lived  in  Cook 
county  eight  years;  formerly  resided  in  Livingston 
county,  Illinois;  formed  an  opinion  from  reading  the 
newspapers;  is  not  sure  whether  the  defendants  are  guilty 
or  not;  I  have  formed  no  opinion  upon  the  question  of 
the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  defendants.  I  have  a  prej- 
udice against  socialists,  communists  and  anarchists; 
thinks  his  opinion  might  be  biased. 

He  was  challenged  for  cause,  whereupon  the  state 
further  interrogated  and  ascertained  from  him  that  he  had 
formed  no  opinion  as  to  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  de- 
fendants. Have'formed  an  opinion  as  to  the  crime  per- 
petrated, the  nature  and  character  of  it.  Says  that  he 
would  try  to  determine  from  the  proof  alone  the  inno- 
cence or  guilt  of  these  defendants,  regardless  of  what  he 
had  read  or  heard,  and  believes  that  he  could  do  that. 
Never  has  seen  either  of  these  eight  men  before;  no  per- 
sonal acquaintance  with  any  of  them;  that  the  only 
opinion  that  he  has  is  derived  from  the  reading  of  the 


194 

newspapers,  and  talking  with  other  people.  -I  talked  with 
one  policeman,  whose  name  he  does  not  know,  who  was 
present,  but  the  names  of  none  of  the  defendants  were 
mentioned;  the  talk  of  the  policeman  had  no  influence  in 
arriving  at  his  opinion,  and  he  says  further  that  he  could 
weigh  the  evidence  and  decide  on  the  evidence,  and  that 
alone,  without  reference  to  anything  else.  The  policeman 
with  whom  he  talked  only  gave  him  the  information  in  a 
general  way  about  the  police  marching  down,  and  that  a 
bomb  was  thrown  into  the  crowd;  made  no  mention  of 
who  made  speeches,  and  mentioned  no  names. 

We  have  not  the  time  here  to  make  analyses  of  the  fore- 
going, or  a  comparison  of  the  statements  herein  with  that 
contained  in  the  brief  of  counsel  for  the  defendants.  We 
simply  say  that,  considering  the  fact  that  981  men  were 
called  into  the  jury-box,  that  757  were  excused  for  cause, 
that  the  long  and  elaborate  examination  of  these,  as  well 
as  other  jurors,  equally  determined  us  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  twenty-six  above  complained  of  were  unobjec- 
tionable. 


VII. 
OTHER  MATTERS  COMPLAINED  OF. 


THE  MANNER  OF  IMPANELING  THE  JURY. 

By  the  statutes  (Chap.  78,  Sec.  21)  it  is  "Provided 
"  that  the  jury  shall  be  passed  upon  and  accepted  in  pan- 
"  els  of  four  by  the  parties,  commencing  with  the  plaint- 
"  iff"  This  language  is  plain  and  has  but  one  construc- 
tion. The  state,  commencing,  passes  upon  and  accepts 
the  jury  in  panels  of  four,  twelve  being  in  the  jury-box. 
The  four  which  the  state  "  passes  upon  and  accepts  "  are 
tendered  to  the  other  parties,  who  must  pass  upon  these 
four  and  accept  them  or  others  in  their  place,  and  having 
accepted  four  which  are  different  in  part  or  in  whole  from 
those  accepted  by  the  state,  then  the  state  in  turn  rec-x- 
amines  the  defendants'  tender  of  four.  The  state  com- 
mences and  the  defense  follows  in  the  passing  upon  or  ac- 
cepting the  three  successive  fours  of  the  twelve. 

The  case  of  Fitzpatrick  et  al.  v.  City  of  yoliet,  87 
111.,  58,  partially  quoted  by  counsel,  by  the  entire  decision 
is  in  point  for  the  state.  Defendant  in  error  in  this  case 
had  first  passed  upon  and  accepted  the  jury,  which  was 
turned  over  to  the  objectors,  the  plaintiffs  in  error.  The 
court  say: 

"  We  find  that  after  the  several  objectors  had  been 
heard  in  their  order,  and  had  respectively  made  challenges 
of  jurors  whose  places  had  been  supplied  by  'talesmen,' 
and  before  the  panel  was  turned  over  to  the  city  for  ex- 
amination, the  court  asked  the  several  objectors  if  they 
desired  to  pass  further  upon  the  jurors  presented,  and  stated 
that  if  the  objectors  were  through,  the  jurors  would  be 


ip6 

turned  over  to  the  city  for  examination,  and  the  objectors 
making  no  further  objection  to  said  jurors,  they  were  ac- 
cepted by  the  city." 

The  defendants  in  turn  must  tender  back  a  panel  of  four 
before  the  state  commences  examination  of  the  next  panel 
of  four. 


IMPEACHMENT  OF  JURORS  BY  AFFIDAVIT. 

It  was  attempted,  on  the  motion  for  new  trial,  to  attack 
the  qualifications  of  jurors  Denker  and  Adams  by  and 
through  the  affidavits  of  Morgan  and  Cull  respectively. 
(Vol.  O,  66.)  Denker,  accepted  by  defendants  first, 
stated  in  his  examination  that  he  had  an  opinion  in  the 
premises  and  had  expressed  it,  but  believed  he  could  fairly 
and  impartially  try  the  case  and  render  a  fair  and  impar- 
tial verdict  on  the  evidence.  He  denies  in  his  affidavit 
that  he  ever  expressed  the  opinion  attributed  to  him  in 
Morgan's  affidavit,  or  that  he  ever  expressed  to  Morgan 
any  opinion  whatever.  Cull  made  an  affidavit  in  regard 
to  Adams.  His  statements  are  denied  by  Adams. 

A  juror's  affidavit  will  be  received  to  sustain  but  not  to 
attack  a  verdict.  Any  other  rule  in  a  case  like  this  one 
would  be  an  absolute  subversion  of  justice. 

Graham   v.    Waterman,  N.  Y.,  Vol.  3,  pp. 
,1,450-1. 

Hayne  New  Trial,  224. 

Hughes  v.  The  People,  116  111.,  338. 

In  the  Hughes  case  this  court,  after  declaring  that  a  ju- 
ror's affidavit  will  be  received  to  sustain  his  verdict,  say 
that: 

"  Scarcely  a  criminal  case  comes  to  this  court  where 
the  same  objection  to  the  competency  of  jurors  is  not  taken, 


i97 

founded  on  mere  r.v  partc  affidavits.  Such  affidavits  aiv  a 
most  unsatisfactory  mode  of  establishing  any  fact  in  a  case. 
The  parties  making  them  are  subject  to  no  cross-exami- 
nation— one  of  the  most  potent  methods  ever  adopted  to 
elicit  truth,  to  detect  falsehood.  Besides  that,  a  mere  cas- 
ual remark  concerning  any  matter  may  be  imperfectly  un- 
derstood or  not  accurately  remembered.  Many  cogent 
reasons  readily  suggest  themselves  why  the  testimony  as 
to  such  previously  expressed  opinions  by  persons  called 
as  jurors  should  be  of  a  clear  and  satisfactory  character, 
otherwise  a  verdict  fully  warranted  by  the  evidence  might 
have  to  be  set  aside  and  the  ends  of  justice  defeated." 


THE  NUMBER  OF  CHALLENGE. 

It  was  insisted  on  the  part  of  the  defense  that  the  state 
was  entitled  to  only  twenty  peremptory  challenges,  the 
court  below  holding  that  the  state  was  entitled  to  one 
hundred  and  sixty  challenges,  that  both  the  state  and  the 
defendants  stood  alike  under  our  statute.  The  section  in 
question  is  as  follows,  R.  S.,  Sec.  432,  Chap.  38: 

"  Every  person  arraigned  for  any  crime  punishable 
with  death  or  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  for  life 
shall  be  admitted  on  his  trial  to  a  peremptory  challenge 
of  twenty  jurors  and  no  more;  and  any  person  arraigned 
for  any  offense  that  may  be  punishable  by  imprisonment 
for  a  term  exceeding  eighteen  months  shall  be  admitted 
to  a  peremptory  challenge  ot  ten  jurors;  and  in  all  other 
criminal  trials,  the  defendant  shall  be  allowed  a  peremp- 
tory challenge  of  six  jurors.  The  attorney  prosecuting"  on 
hchaJf  of  the  people  shall  be  admitted  to  a  peremptory  elial- 
len^'e  of  the  same  number  of  jurors  that  the  accused  is  enl 'it 'led 
fo." 

This  section  has   been   in   operation  since  1869.     Prior 
to  that  time,  if  our  examination  is  correct,  from  1827  the 
state  was  entitled  "  to  one-half  of  the  number,"  etc. 
Gates'  Statutes,  1839,  p.  232,  Sec.  174. 
R.  S.   1845,  p.  185,  Sec.  184. 


198 

Laws  of  1869,  p.  362. 

Laws  of  1827,  p.  162,  Sec.  172: 

R.  S.  1833,  p.  213,  Sec.  174. 

Then  this  .section,  so  far  as  its  construction  is  concerned, 
has  been  in  operation  about  sixty  years,  and  the  Supreme 
court  has  never  passed  on  the  question,  although  during 
all  that  time  the  practice  in  Cook  county  and,  from  all  the 
information  we  can  obtain  from  the  bar  of  the  state,  in 
every  county  in  this  state,  has  been  agreeable  to  the  ruling 
of  Judge  Gary  in  the  case  at  bar.  The  relative  position 
of  the  state  and  the  accused  to  the  trial,  under  the  English 
common  law,  has  been  changed — revolutionized,  and 
they  stand  alike  before  the  court  in  this  state. 

The  statutes  pertinent  and  relevant  to  the  respective 
decisions  cited  by  counsel  for  defense  are,  each  and  all, 
manifestly  and  entirely  different  from  our  own. 

It  would  be  a  strange  thing  if,  after  sixty  years  of  uni- 
form, unquestioned  practice  throughout  this  state,  estab- 
lishing a  universal  rule,  without  an  exception  so  far  as  we 
can  learn,  that  we  should  finally  awake  to  the  idea  that  in 
a  case  like  the  present  one  the  state  ought  to  furnish  fa- 
cilities to  the  defendants  to  "  pack  the  jury." 

But  defendants  are  in  no  position  to  complain.  No 
specific  number  of  peremptory  challenges  was  charged  to 
any  defendant.  The  eight  defendants  bunched,  aggre- 
gated their  challenges,  no  one  making  twenty,  but  all  to- 
gether making  one  hundred  and  sixty,  so  that  each,  in 
effect,  had  the  benefit  of  the  whole  number.  The  accused 
had  one  hundred  and  sixty  challenges.  The  state  was 
entitled  to  the  same  number.  If  the  English  language 
has  any  meaning,  or  if  universal  custom  has  any  force, 
there  is  no  error  in  this  assignment, 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  SPECIAL  BAILIFF. 

Ryce  was  appointed  special  bailiff,  on  motion  of  defend- 
ants' counsel,  under  the  statute,  to  serve  the  venire  for 
the  jury. 

On  the  motion  for  a  new  trial,  defendants  filed  the  affi- 
davit of  E.  A.  Stevens,  that  he  had  heard  Otis  Favor  say 
that  Ryce  had  said,  in  his  hearing,  or  to  him,  something 
about  what  kind  or  class  of  men  he  was  summoning  as 
jurors,  and,  based  upon  said  affidavit,  defendants  made  a 
motion  to  cause  said  Favor  to  appear  in  court  on  said 
motion,  and  testify  as  to  what,  if  anything,  Ryce  had  said 
to  him. 

Counsel  refer,  as  pertinent  to  this  question  (viz:  the 
power  of  the  court  to  compel  a  witness  to  appear  and 
testify  on  a  motion  of  the  character  designated),  to  Sees. 
1,469  and  1,472  of  Tnmbat  &  Haley's  Practice. 

Upon  the  reading  of  these  sections,  it  appears  that  they 
do  not  in  any  particular  apply  to  the  proposition  announced 
by  counsel. 

Counsel  also  refer  to  People  v.  Jameson,  40  111.,  93, 
which  is  not  in  point. 

In  the  Jameson  case  there  was  a  mandamus  to  compel 
Jameson,  then  Judge  of  the  Superior  court,  to  sign  a  bill 
of  exceptions  presented  by  relator.  He  declined  to  sign 
the  bill  of  exceptions  presented,  but  in  his  return  said  that 
he  had  signed  a  bill  of  exceptions  which  he  approved. 
The  Supreme  court  said  that  that  ended  the  matter;  that 
this  court  had  no  authority  to  compel  a  judge  to  sign  any 
bill  of  exceptions  except  that  which  he  approved.  The 


200 

most  that  can  be  claimed  in  matter  of  compelling  a  judge 
to  sign  a  bill  of  exceptions  is  that  if  the-Judge  be  in 
doubt  as  to  what  any  witness  has  testified  to,  he  might 
ask  the  witness  to  come  before  him  and  recite  again  the 
facts  on  the  disputed  point. 

It  does  not  strike  us  that  the  case  is  at  all  in  point. 

There  is  another  objection  to  the  position  of  counsel. 
The  affidavit  is  too  indefinite  and  too  remote  to  base  any 
motion  upon  whatever.  It  is  hearsay,  and  is  to  the  effect 
that  Stevens  heard  Favor  say  that  Ryce  had  said  so 
and  so. 

Another  significant  feature  of  this  motion  and  the  affi- 
davits upon  which  it  is  based,  which  stamps  the  whole 
proceeding  with  fraud  and  suspicion,  is  that  it  does  not 
appear  that  Ryce  made  any  declarations  of  the  character 
attributed  to  him  to  any  individual  juror,  or  that  he  said 
anything  whatever  to  any  one  of  the  twelve  taken  to  try 
this  case. 

It  is  contended  by  counsel  that  the  judge  had  power  to 
issue  a  subpoena,  based  upon  these  indefinite  and  suspicious 
affidavits,  to  compel  Favor  to  present  himself  in  court  and 
give  testimony,  the  result  of  which  might  be  the  ascer- 
taining of  facts  upon  which  to  base  an  additional  ground 
for  a  new  trial;  it  not  appearing  in  the  motion,  in  any  affi- 
davit, or  by  any  declaration,  that  any  injury  or  prejudice 
resulted  to  the  defendants,  or  any  of  them. 

The  court  denied  its  power  in  the  premises.  The  most 
that  could  be  claimed  on  the  part  of  the  defendants'  coun- 
sel was  that  the  court  should  exercise  his  discretion  in  the 
premises.  Upon  the  affidavits  and  the  motion  as  made, 
the  court  exercised  the  proper  discretion,  in  refusing  to 
have  anything  to  do  with  it,  because  no  injury  and  no 


2OI 

prejudice  had   resulted  from   the  alleged  conduct  of  said 
bailiff'  against  any  defendant. 

Counsel  complain,  as  shown  by  their  brief  (page  391), 
of  the  following  language  attributed  to  Ryce:  "I  am 
"  summoning  as  jurors  such  men  as  they  will  be  com- 
"  pelled  to  challenge  peremptorily,  and  when  they  have' 
"  exhausted  their  peremptory  challenges,  they  will  have 
"  such  a  jury  as  is  satisfactory  to  the  state." 

There  is  nothing  objectionable  in  this,  if  true,  and  it 
means  simply  that  Ryce  was  endeavoring  to  summon  in- 
telligent and  competent  jurors,  against  whom  no  ground 
of  objection,  and  no  cause  of  challenge,  could  be  laid. 
The  statute  says  that  he  shall  summon  persons  having 
"  the  qualifications  of  jurors,"  etc.,  and  such  qualifications 
are  specified  in  section  2,  chapter  78.  Did  counsel  expect 
him  to  summon  disqualified  and  incompetent  jurors? 

MOTION  FOR  SEPARATE  TRIAL. 

As  to  the  claim  that  the  court  erred  in  refusing  a  sepa- 
rate trial,  from  the  other  defendants,  to  Spies,  Schwab, 
Fielden,  Neebe  and  Parsons,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that 
the  question  is  one  resting  entirely  in  the  discretion  of  the 
trial  court,  and  even  if  the  discretion  is  not  properly  exer- 
cised, it  is  not  error  that  can  be  complained  of  here.  This 
has  been  explicitly  held  in 

Maton  v.  The  People,  15  111.,  536. 

Moreover,  the  motion  must  rest  on  the  cause  shown  in 
the  affidavits  supporting  it,  and  upon  the  affidavits  pre- 
sented in  support  of  the  motion  in  this  case  no  sufficient 
cause  was  alleged,  for  the  only  ground  named  in  the 
affidavits  is  the  introduction  of  evidence  which  could  have 
no  effect  upon  them  if  the  affidavits  were  true. 


202 


REMARKS  OF  STATE'S  ATTORNEY." 

Where  the  evidence  of  guilt  is  satisfactory,  the  judg- 
ment will  not  be  reversed  for  mere  improper  remarks  of 
counsel  for  the  people,  tending  to  prejudice  the  jury 
against  the  accused. 

Wilson  v.  People,  94  111.,  299. 
Garrity  v.  People,  107  111.,  163. 


CONCLUSION. 

In  conclusion,  we  desire  to  say:  The  indictment  in  this 
case  charges  all  the  plaintiffs  in  error  with  the  crime  of 
murder,  and  is  sufficiently  broad  in  its  averments  to  em- 
,  brace  the  conclusions  of  guilt  which  might  be  drawn  from 
any  evidence  that  has  been  adduced  in  this  case,  and  war- 
rant a  judgment  thereon. 

We  maintain  that  the  accused  has  each  enjoyed  the 
right  to  appear  and  defend  in  person  and  by  counsel,  to 
demand  the  nature  and  cause  of  the  accusation  and  to 
have  a  copy  thereof,  to  meet  the  witnesses  face  to  face, 
and  to  have  process  to  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses 
in  his  behalf,  and  a  speedy  and  public  trial  by  an  impartial 
jury  of  the  county  in  which  the  offense  is  alleged  to  have 
been  committed.  We  speak  not  outside  of  what  the 
record  discloses  when  we  assert  that  the  jury  which  tried 
this  cause  was  one  composed  of  men  of  superior  in- 


203 

telligence  and  fully  imbued  with  a  proper  sense  of  the 
grave  responsibilities  which  rested  upon  them.  They 
each  and  all  filled  the  full  measure  of  the  general  statu- 
tory qualifications. 

It  is  true  all  of  them  could  read  and  write,  and  by  these 
acquirements  had  better  fitted  themselves  for  the  duties 
of  citizenship,  including  service  as  jurors  in  criminal  causes, 
in  the  issues  of  which  were  involved  the  lives  and  liberties 
of  their  fellow  men.  In  this  day  of  the  rapid  and  general 
diffusion  of  intelligence,  it  is  impossible,  from  the  very 
nature  of  things,  that  any  considerable  number  of  men  of 
fair  or  even  moderate  mental  capacity  could  be  found  in 
the  county  of  Cook,  who  should  not  have  heard  some- 
thing of  and  formed  some  opinions  in  regard  to  a  matter 
occurring  in  their  midst  of  so  much  public  moment  as 
the  terrible  crime  for  the  perpetration  of  which  these 
plaintiffs  in  error  have  been  convicted.  To  demand,  in 
such  a  case,  that  men  shall  be  selected  as  jurors  who 
have  heard  nothing  of  the  occurrences,  or,  hearing  of 
them,  have  too  little  capacity  to  remember  what  they 
have  heard  long  enough  to  formulate  an 
opinion  therefrom,  is  to  commit  the  operation 
of  our  entire  jury  system  to  ignorance  alone 
and  thus  destroy  its  usefulness  as  part  of  our  judicial 
machinery.  The  constitutional  guaranty  to  the  accused 
is  "an  impartial  jury";  and  we  confidently  maintain  that 
a  careful  examination  of  the  record  in  this  case  will  fail  to 
disclose  a  condition  of  mind  on  the  part  of  any  juror  who 
tried  the  cause,  indicating  any  malice  or  ill  will  toward 
any  of  the  accused;  or  that  any  one  of  them  had  in  any 
way  so  prejudged  the  cause  that  he  could  not  impartially 
try  the  issue  submitted  to  him,  and  render  a  verdict  based 
on  the  evidence  alone.  Each  of  the  jurors  answered  on 


oalh  that  he  could  so  try  the  cause,  and  each  of  them 
solemnly  swore  that  he  would  so  try  it;  the  'trial  court 
believed  them  so  capable  of  so  trying  the  cause,  and  when 
they  had  rendered  their  verdict  believed  they  had  so  tried 
it  and  refused  to  set  the  verdict  aside;  the  prosecution  be- 
lieved they  would  so  try  the  cause,  and  that  the  accused 
so  believed  when  the  jury  were  accepted  is  evident  from 
the  record,  which  shows  that  all  of  the  jurors  were  volun- 
tarily accepted  by  the  accused  except  the  last  one,  and 
he  was  manifestly  challenged  for  the  sole  purpose  of  sav- 
ing an  exception. 

It  was  in  'the  power  of  the  accused  to  excuse  any  or  all 
of  said  jurors,  except  the  last  one,  and  this  power  they 
did  not  choose  to  exercise.  We  insist  that  the  accused 
have  had  the  benefit  of  a  trial  by  an  impartial  jury,  as 
provided  by  the  constitution  of  this  state. 

That  the  evidence  sustains  the  verdict,  we  believe  this 
court,  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  record,  will  not 
entertain  a  reasonable  doubt. 

That  the  accused,  through  the  medium  of  the  con- 
spiracy of  which  they  were  members,  were  accessories  to 
the  crime  of  the  murder  of  Mathias  J.  Degan,  accom- 
plished by  the  explosion  of  a  dynamite  bomb,  at  the  Hay- 
market  meeting,  we  submit,  the  evidence  convincingly 
shows.  If  they  were  guilty  as  accessories,  under  our  law 
they  are  deemed  to  be  principals,  and  are  punishable  as 
such;  and  the  wisdom  of  this  provision  of  the  law,  we 
submit,  was  never  more  manifest  than  in  the  present  case. 

The  history  of  crime  in  this  state  shows  no  parallel  in 
all  its  pages  to  the  murderous  act  for  which  plaintiffs  in 
error  have  been  convicted:  an  act  which,  as  the  record 
shows,  was  wholly  unprovoked  and  without  the  shadow  of 


205 

justification,  showing  a  heart  utterly  depraved  and  a 
wicked  disregard  of  human  life;  an  act  resulting  not  only 
in  the  death  of  Mathias  J.  Degan,  but  also  in  the  killing 
of  six  others  and  the  maiming  of  still  sixty  other  members 
of  the  police  force  of  the  city  of  Chicago. 

We  submit  that  the  evidence  justifies  the  verdict;   that 
the  record  shows  no  material  error,  and  that  the  judgment 

should  be  affirmed. 

GEO.  HUNT, 

Attorney-  General. 
JULIUS  S.  GRINNELL 

State's  Atfy. 
FRANCIS  W.  WALKER, 
EDMUND  FURTHMAN, 

Assistant  State's  Atfvs. 
GEO.  C.  INGHAM, 

Of  Counsel. 


A-' 


V 


:- 


